Recent experiences have led me to think that in geographically distributed organizations / teams, it is not the process or systems to identify accountability that is among the primary factors for success.
Rather it might just be trust. Trust develops along multiple axes. Perhaps the primary one is via communication - whether resulting from face to face interactions or through various technical solutions.
Lately I have found the former more effective, though in the past I have been able to be effective working with people spread across continents who I rarely, in some cases never, met in person. In the latter case, I was working for an academic organization, and even there the legal office would be seen an impeding factor in allowing staff to collaborate freely. But we chugged along regardless. I have also seen effective success in smaller organizations.
In at least some cases, teams that may be considered 'remote' - in that they are removed from the primary markets for a product/offering - see themselves in the function of optimizing operational efficiencies. This seems to lead to primary metrics such as reducing attrition and expanding head count without concern for how these may meet fundamental business objectives.
My question is how to make the effectiveness of remote team scale. Communication will always be variegated for many diverse reasons, and extended in person interactions are one way to addressing the communication problem, but it may not always be seen as cost effective.
All & any thoughts are welcome.
Cheers
--
mgh
Rather it might just be trust. Trust develops along multiple axes. Perhaps the primary one is via communication - whether resulting from face to face interactions or through various technical solutions.
Lately I have found the former more effective, though in the past I have been able to be effective working with people spread across continents who I rarely, in some cases never, met in person. In the latter case, I was working for an academic organization, and even there the legal office would be seen an impeding factor in allowing staff to collaborate freely. But we chugged along regardless. I have also seen effective success in smaller organizations.
In at least some cases, teams that may be considered 'remote' - in that they are removed from the primary markets for a product/offering - see themselves in the function of optimizing operational efficiencies. This seems to lead to primary metrics such as reducing attrition and expanding head count without concern for how these may meet fundamental business objectives.
My question is how to make the effectiveness of remote team scale. Communication will always be variegated for many diverse reasons, and extended in person interactions are one way to addressing the communication problem, but it may not always be seen as cost effective.
All & any thoughts are welcome.
Cheers
--
mgh
This is too complicated a subject in the current situation where multi locational organisations are linked by WAN and are in the business of managing things other than physical goods and services. I was always in the business of goods and have had a great deal of experience of multilocational problems. Inevitably, a dose of delegation and accountability for results with expressed consequences worked. Quite whether that will work in your line of business is something that I am not qualified to comment on but broadly the principles should make sense.
ReplyDelete