Asynchronous work is supposed to help us move faster, work flexibly, and collaborate across time zones without burnout. But for many teams, it’s doing the opposite.
Messages get ignored. Projects stall. Everyone’s waiting on a reply that never comes.
So what’s going wrong? Well, it’s not your tools, it’s about setting expectations.
Async strategies fail because they rely on vague messages, unspoken assumptions, and inconsistent habits.
In this post, we’ll explain why your async tools aren’t the problem, and the real reasons async communication gets ignored or misinterpreted.
We’ll show you how to address these issues by building an async playbook with response time norms, decision protocols, and documentation standards, and how to maintain this as your company scales.
If your team is remote, hybrid, or just overwhelmed by digital noise, this is your blueprint for getting async right, and making it a true competitive advantage.
When the pandemic hit, many companies rushed into remote-first or hybrid models, hoping asynchronous communication would be the antidote to endless Zooms.
With no fixed hours, fewer meetings, and more autonomy, the appeal is clear to see.
The problem is that async doesn’t automatically create efficiency.
Without clear expectations, what’s intended as thoughtful communication becomes ambiguous noise. Without shared workflows, tools become graveyards of half-finished conversations.
According to a report by Axios HQ, only 29% of employees say their internal communication is clear, while 74% say they miss out on company news because of poor messaging.
Async doesn’t fix these problems, it magnifies them.
Most teams don’t fail at async because of their tools. They fail because they haven’t agreed on how to use them.
The usual symptoms?
When everything feels optional, nothing gets done. That leads to what Jason Fried, co-founder of Basecamp, calls ‘the fog of work’, where communication is constant but little moves forward.
And the longer it drags on, the more people default to real-time pings or quick calls to unblock things, which defeats the purpose of async.
In this AXIOS HQ survey, issues around communication, collaboration and co-ordination are key barriers to effective remote or hybrid work.
The real issue here is that async fails without shared expectations. Async tools amplify whatever culture you already have, for better or worse.
Let’s look at where most async plans go wrong, and what to do instead.
Going async doesn’t mean going rogue. In fact, the most successful async-first teams are often more structured than their in-office counterparts.
When regular meetings disappear, you need to replace them with repeatable processes. That might mean written standups, clearly defined project cadences, and structured updates in your chosen tools.
Otherwise, you’re just swapping interruptions for inertia.
Vague communication is a big problem. Without context, people either over-respond, under-respond, or ignore the message altogether.
Strong async communication follows a simple rule: context + action + deadline.
If any of those are missing, expect delays.
Not everything is urgent. But without agreed timelines, even routine updates start to feel like mini-crises.
The fix isn’t rigid rules, it’s shared rhythm. Your team should know:
This gives people the freedom to focus without worrying they’re dropping the ball.
The best async teams treat it like a system. Here’s how to build your own.
Start by defining response-time windows that reflect your actual working cadence:
Make these norms visible and accessible, ideally pinned in your main async workspace.
Async isn’t just about avoiding meetings, it’s about capturing progress without needing live conversation.
That means recording key decisions, who made them, and why. Use a simple format:
Teams like GitLab, which runs fully remote across 60+ countries, rely on robust decision logs to avoid confusion, and also have a detailed communication handbook.
Many teams bolt on tools because they’re trendy without considering whether or not they solve real problems.
Instead, start with this question: What repeatable workflows does our team rely on?
Then pick (or customise) tools that support those workflows, not distract from them.
For example:
One McKinsey study found that the average employee spends 1.8 hours a day just searching for information.
When this happens, it’s not about tools, it’s a workflow problem.
The key is to build your async communications around how your team works.
An async strategy isn’t set and forget. Like any system: it drifts without maintenance.
Hold a lightweight review every quarter. Ask your team:
Even adding a short async retrospective every few months can surface blockers and highlight wins.
Culture, like code, needs refactoring.
Too often, teams confuse freedom with ‘figure it out yourself’. That’s a recipe for frustration, not autonomy.
The best async strategies are grounded in:
If your async plan is failing, it’s not because async doesn’t work. It’s because clarity hasn’t been built into the system.
And if you’re scaling your team, especially across time zones or functions, now’s the time to fix it.
An effective async setup isn’t just efficient, it’s a strategic advantage. When people work asynchronously, shared ownership matters more than ever.
Employee share schemes align everyone’s incentives around the same mission, so distributed teams feel equally invested in moving things forward, no matter where or when they work.