Blog #165: Broad work vs deep work
Finding a balance between remote and in-person work
Tags: braingasm, broad, deep, work, remote, hybrid
Photo by
[ED: This post should be very easy to consume for both technical and non-technical folks alike, focussing more on the workplace than raw technology.]
COVID and lockdowns radically changed the way that the majority of knowledge workers operated. During Lockdown, most (if not all) knowledge and creative work moved to remote-only. Once lockdowns ended, there was a fundamental change in the presumption of defaults to the extent that remote work was now considered the norm in many cases rather than the exception.
Many engineers and other creative types rejoiced at this shift because it allowed them to work in an environment almost entirely under their control, free from interruptions, unnecessary meetings, and other corporate distractions that stopped them from simply getting their job done. In contrast, many of those tasked with managing and leading creatives and knowledge workers started to worry about the effects of remote work on company culture, apprenticeship, and productivity—some of them to the point of apoplexy.
As with many nuanced debates, there are some excellent points on both sides of this argument, although perhaps not at the extremes. As a software engineer [ED: At least in spirit, these days!] I sympathise with the typical engineer’s response to the move to remote work: unbridled joy! As a manager and leader, I can also sympathise with what we lose when everyone operates remotely.
The big thing we lose is what I defined in 2020 as corridor creativity—the idea that:
… some of the most exciting, challenging, and creative conversations often happen as you walk past someone in the corridor when their presence triggers a thought that may otherwise not have surfaced. Under Lockdown, happenstance meetings in office corridors do not occur. And any interactions with colleagues that do occur only happen as part of a pre-arranged meeting, typically down the barrel of a video call. What was once a short interaction with a brief exchange of ideas that might have lasted no more than a couple of minutes now has to be scheduled in an increment of 30 minutes or more.
At the start of 2024, as we head into our fourth year of this new working reality, I want to crystallise a couple of ideas that I have been thinking about for a while: the distinction between deep work and broad work.
Deep Work
Photo by Deep Work should be familiar to any creative knowledge worker. This kind of work requires deep thought, reflection, contemplation, the generation of conjectures, creative iteration and selection, and, importantly, flow, almost always in intellectual isolation. When a software engineer manages to get into flow, they (can) lose track of time, but they can also tap into a seam of creativity that is not only highly productive but also profoundly rewarding in terms of creative satisfaction. Most engineers revel in flow and deep work and get frustrated when corporate interruptions bump them out.
Broad Work
Photo by Broad Work, in contrast, is the kind of work that requires collaboration, cooperation, discussion, debate, interaction and integration with multiple people. Broad work is meetings, discussions, and spontaneous interactions with co-workers and colleagues. Many engineers see broad work as a blocker to getting things done. For managers and leaders, broad work is their stock-in-trade. They spend the vast majority of their time in these short-lived interactions and, depending on the nature of the work and people they are managing or leading, might not even recognise the difference between deep and broad work because they only ever spend time in the latter.
Reframing
I want to reframe the debate between deep and broad work — to the extent that such a debate exists — by suggesting, perhaps controversially, that both sides should lift their heads a little and consider the other’s perspective.
Both deep and broad work is essential to get anything done at scale. The only difference is the degree to which different people dip in and out of each type. Engineers need to spend much more time in deep work than in broad work, and the reverse is true for managers and leaders.
Taking the engineer’s perspective, lockdowns have been a boon for deep work because they normalised remote working and gave (some, but not all) engineers easier access to flow in their preferred work-from-home environments.
Taking the management/leadership perspective, the normalisation of remote work — and the staunch resistance by some knowledge workers to abide by return-to-work orders — has led to a perception of deterioration in office culture, slacking off, reduction in productivity, and any other maladies that suited management’s narrative.
When we look more deeply (see: [2][2], [3][3], [4][4], [5][5], [6][6]), we find compelling evidence that data does not support the main gripe from management — that remote work harms productivity. There are even suggestions (see: [7][7]) that return-to-office mandates are masking poor management. It is easy to see how management might think productivity is impacted, particularly for less enlightened management types, who tend to focus on input rather than outcomes.
Solution
The solution to the tension between both sides of this argument is, I think, relatively simple.
Firstly, both sides should recognise the existence of these two different working modes. Simply agreeing that there is a deep mode and a broad mode and that sometimes you need to be in one and other times you need to be in the other will go a long way to each side understanding the other.
Secondly, be intentional about when you will be in one mode versus the other. Sometimes, client pressure means you might be unable to work in your preferred mode, but at least you can recognise that for what it is: being client-responsive.
Ultimately, I think this (slight) compromise works for both engineers and managers.
Engineers can be explicit about when they are working deep or broad and be confident that there is respect from management for the two modes and that both are meaningful for their employee experience and productive contributions to the firm. Managers can plan for both modes and synchronise across employees so that the best outcomes are possible for communication and collaboration during broad work and creative output during deep work.
The broad/deep work distinction puts us in a much better place than before when all we had was tension about who was doing what and whether or not it was the next best thing to be done.
Originally published by M@ on Medium.
References
1: “Are remote workers more productive? That’s the wrong question.”
2: “Surprising working from home statistics”
3: “Is Remote Work Making You Productive? A Data-Backed Answer”
4: “Half of employees feel more productive when working from home, research finds”
6: “Working From Home Increases Productivity”
7: “CEOs Are Using Return To Office Mandates To Mask Poor Management”
8: “Remote work won, don’t let anyone gaslight you to believe otherwise”
9: “New GitHub Copilot Research Finds ‘Downward Pressure on Code Quality”
10: “Yes, good DevEx increases productivity. Here is the data.”
