Full Async

Overview

Full Async refers to a way of working that entirely relies on asynchronous communication.

There are no meetings, regardless of whether in-person or remote. Meetings can be arranged in advance but are infrequent, happening less than once a month. Even holding one monthly could be considered too frequent. It wouldn't be unusual for a company to go an entire year without a meeting. However, this practice pertains to internal operations and does not extend to external communications. Therefore, individuals who engage frequently in synchronous communication with external parties may still exist. Nevertheless, at least internally, the communication remains asynchronous.

Notifications are subject to interpretation at the recipient's discretion. It's permissible to send notifications in the form of mentions, but recipients are not obligated to respond immediately. Forcing instantaneous responses is considered harassment.

Concepts

Let's organize the components of Full Async.

• 1: 3T (Talk, Topic, Task)
• 2: De-Relation
• 3: Teal Organization

This will involve some complex discussions, but let's explain each one step by step.

1: 3T (Talk, Topic, Task)

3T (Talk, Topic, Task) is an approach to understanding communication in three stages: Talk, Topic, and Task.

Traditional communication implies that the "correct answers lie in each individual's mind" and "aligning those through conversation," which is a synchronous approach not adopted by Full Async. Instead, all exchanges are treated through the lens of 3T.

Consider a scenario where people engage in small talk during lunchtime. Traditionally, it's just idle talk, and how it's interpreted and processed is up to each individual. In contrast, through the 3T perspective, this chat is viewed as consisting of several exchanges. Each exchange is called a COIN (Cluster Of INformation). Communication is seen as being made up of units of COINs. For example, the structure might look like this:

• Small talk during lunchtime
  • COIN-1 (Talk)
  • COIN-2 (Talk)
  • COIN-3 (Topic)
  • COIN-4 (Task)
  • ...

Now, let's take a closer look at 3T.

Talk is the stage for divergent and purposeless gathering of information, including idle chatter.

Topic is the stage where a “subject” is determined. Only information related to the "subject" is gathered. Any unrelated topics are moved to another COIN. Links can be added to indicate relationships if needed.

Task is the stage where "decided actions" are outlined. However, strict management akin to task management tools is not applied (the precise management is done within a task or project management system). This stage lightly touches on the state of tasks (start, finish, halt), the decision-maker, deadlines, schedules, and other progress information like motivation.

In Full Async, we create many COINs. We create COINs, read existing ones, add more content, and even hold discussions within them. COINs are fluid; they often begin with Talk and transition through Topic to Task.

Naturally, the number of COINs can be substantial. In a fully asynchronous project with five full-time members for a month, counting all small talk, the number of COINs can easily exceed several hundreds. It could easily reach a thousand, and may even hit the ten-thousands in an experienced organization.

2: De-Relation

De-Relation refers to a way of ignoring the activity of deepening interpersonal relationships.

Here is a symbolic phrase that represents De-Relation:

Pay attention to what is written, not to who wrote it.

Synchronous communication exists because of our appreciation for relational activities. Building and deepening relationships is a primitive human desire and dealing with familiar people is cognitively efficient. However, this comes with the downside of requiring a significant amount of time dedicated to relationship-building communication. Furthermore, biases toward known people can spoil personal and political realms. While it might be fine in private, it isn't wise in a professional context.

In Full Async, we choose to let go of the activity of relationships altogether. Instead of filtering by "who," we focus on "what" is being written and use it as long as it's reliable. Naturally, since Full Async doesn't engage in synchronous conversation, "what" is not spoken but written, and it becomes an activity of reading what is written.

Although this De-Relation concept might seem difficult to grasp, engineers might find it more comprehensible. Consider generative AI as an example. You don't interact with AI based on "who"; you focus on the "what" that the AI outputs and utilize what is necessary. The same approach is applied to human interactions. It might seem cold, but to premise our work on asynchrony, we must eliminate the hindrance that is the activity of relationships.

A question that often arises here is:

"But where do I fulfill my desire to seek relationships?"

Let me answer. Fulfill them in your private life.

Bluntly put, do not mix personal and professional lives. In extreme terms, you wouldn't try to satisfy sexual desires at work, right? That would be harassment. The same logic applies here. While it's fine to satisfy primitive desires Bindfully (with mutual consent), doing so at work is inappropriate. We are not beasts. We are human beings, meant to be rational. Frankly speaking, those who seek to satisfy relational desires through work are akin to monkeys seeking to fulfill sexual desires at work.

3: Teal Organization

Teal Organization is an organizational paradigm proposed by Frederic Laloux.

While we will forgo the detailed explanation of this concept, generally, what most of us imagine when hearing "organization" is the hierarchical type. In Laloux's theory, this is called an Orange Organization. While not as severe as Red Organizations (akin to criminal organizations) or Amber Organizations (akin to religious cults), it retains the bottleneck of hierarchy. Isn't your company the same? There are supervisors, subordinates, different departments, and transcendence across these roles is challenging. Many organizations are constantly embroiled in competition for upward mobility.

In an Orange Organization, Full Async is impossible. An Orange Organization represents an unequal allocated usage of time, requiring lower-ranked individuals to spend 1000 minutes for the 10 minutes of a higher-ranked individual. Moreover, those at higher levels are accustomed to "making quick decisions," turning into Reactive Machines with severely limited capabilities. Naturally, there is no use of asynchronous communication nor can there be. Think of those high-ranking individuals in your organization or surroundings; do you envision them practicing Full Async? The structural paradigm of organization, particularly the hierarchical structure, is at the core of what hinders Full Async.

So, what organizational structure should replace the hierarchical one?

While the answer is yet to stabilize, the most promising option currently is the Teal Organization. A Teal Organization is fundamentally a network-type organization. I categorize it as 3P.

• Party
  • A small group of one to a dozen individuals. Self-contained to execute specific tasks
  • Employees belong to one or more parties, working dynamically across them
• Protocol
  • Governance constitutions or laws to control the entire network of parties
  • Documentation must be public and open to the outside
• Piece
  • Pursuit of capitalist profits shouldn't be the primary goal
  • With a genuine peaceful mission in mind, true enthusiasm must drive actions. Profits follow as a result

Think of a party as a node. The company is a network structure made up of these nodes. However, such a network might not achieve overall optimization, thus it's controlled by protocols. Naturally, there are still leading roles akin to (what would traditionally be) CxOs or chiefs. Furthermore, given that pursuing profits as the foremost goal results in hierarchical and exploitative structures like today's, it's mandatory to declare an alternative stance as Piece.

Conclusion

To realize Full Async, we must replace the traditional synchronous communication with a "new model" that removes its root causes. Three main points were introduced:

• Viewing communication as being conducted through the unit of COINs
• Abandoning the activity of fulfilling relationships
• Transitioning from hierarchical to networked organizational structures

However, as of 2025, there are no concrete examples of success. This indicates that Full Async is a pioneering concept. As a Knowledge Architect, I aspire to cultivate this worldview before I retire.

Benefits

The benefits of Full Async are as follows:

By alleviating bottlenecks of traditional paradigms such as meetings, relationship-building activities, and hierarchal organizations, transformation and optimal allocation become more achievable. Consequently, it becomes possible to sustain and continue business operations as a employee-first and highly diverse organization.

Drawbacks

The major drawback of Full Async is its difficulty in being understood and ingrained.

Full Async, to put it simply, resembles the situation of becoming hearing impaired.

Operating under such a paradigm means performing tasks as usual, albeit with this consideration. If you have worked in a diverse company, you might have collaborated with hearing-impaired individuals, and likely found it challenging to maintain regular performance levels. Simply accommodating by relying completely on asynchronous completion suffices, yet this in itself poses difficulty. This difficulty stems from the fact that, even the hearing-impaired individuals—the experts—may lack the skills for working asynchronously.

It can boldly be stated that humanity has not yet pioneered the method of asynchronous work. Recognizing this illustrates the difficulty of understanding it. This article provides explanations, yet it remains a challenging concept with complexities like COINs, De-Relation, and Teal Organizations.

Nor do the difficulties end here. Assuming comprehension and successful implementation of Full Async as an organization, its maintenance is arduous. The reason lies in the staunch opposition.

In Full Async, the following opposing factions emerge:

• Individuals whose roles require work incapable of being handled asynchronously. These are called Syncers. Syncers perform this work synchronously but must handle every other aspect Full Asynchronously. However, due to their involvement in synchronous tasks, their inclinations often lean towards relaxing or abolishing Full Async.
• Individuals who cannot fulfill their relational desires privately are called Beasts. Convincing Beasts about De-Relation is akin to persuading males in a patriarchal society about gender equality. Minorities may understand that this is an immensely high and thick barrier.

Leaving these two major factions unattended renders Full Async unsustainable. The next organizational restructuring will likely eliminate it.

Implementation

To implement Full Async, it is essential to integrate all elements mentioned in the Concepts—COIN, 3T, De-Relation, and Teal Organization. The remainder of this article introduces the necessary tools for this implementation.

• Multiple communication tools, such as QWINCS
• Virtual offices, especially those suitable for lightweight Daily Park implementation
• Task management
• SSoT Documentation

Let's briefly look into these elements.

Multiple Communication Tools, For Instance, QWINCS

In Full Async, communication is asynchronous, requiring particular tools. Simply relying on chat is insufficient. In an article on QWINCS, it was noted that communication encompasses not only Chat, but also Q&A, Wiki, Issues (Ticket), Note, and Sticky boards (digital whiteboards).

All employees must be proficient in these tools. It's vital that the organization-wide adoption occurs, allowing every member to use them freely and independently. For Issues, for example, it's taken for granted that a universally accessible Issue space (a repository in GitHub's case) is accessible for everyone within the organization to freely discuss and vote.

As a side note, such an approach is being developed under the concept Plurality.

Virtual Offices, Especially Those Suitable for Lightweight Daily Park Implementation

Full Async removes the possibility of physical gatherings, yet mechanisms to capture everyone's attention are crucial. This can be substituted with virtual offices. Particularly, using the previously introduced Light-weight Virtual Office to create daily workspaces for everyone to congregate and write individually fulfills this function. It results naturally in a gathering place where matters requiring group attention or consultation only need to be written down to be asynchronously processed.

Task Management

This is the paramount element in Full Async. Practicing Full Async implies self-management of individual tasks.

Suppose you have 30 tasks. Some are Musts, others are Shoulds or Wants. Can you balance all of these without issue? Likely, 98% would say "No," even for engineers.

The reason is it's impossible to manage 30 tasks while considering your context and condition, proceeding sustainably. Task management is what enables this, yet this domain is neither properly systematized nor promulgated. I had to delineate this system myself.

• Japanese version: タスク管理を噛み砕く
• English version: Breaking Down Task Management

However, in my view, "Toolization is essential." Understanding the system of task management becomes meaningless unless you can act upon it. From my experience as a Knowledge Architect and task management expert observing countless individuals, I conclude that modern people generally lack a talent for task management, even among business professionals relying on soft skills. Hence, I believe developing software to assist in task management is imperative.

SSoT Documentation

The 3P pivotal to the Teal Organization includes the Protocol, discussed as a written constitution, law, or rule open to the external world. Such openness to public sharing indicates the necessity for document openness. The ultimate examples include The GitLab Handbook and Holacracy Constitution v5.0.

In Full Async, this method of directing "Refer to this document" is upheld comprehensively. The original source should be a document outside oneself, not an individual's mind nor an authority figure's mind. This is called the Single Source of Truth.

SSoT is a term used regarding data sources in engineering, but for Full Async, it pertains to documents. The idea is to always make documents the SSoT. With thorough SSoT implementation, we could work document-driven, thereby realizing Full Async.

Closing Remarks

The concept of Full Async, focusing only on asynchronous communication and forming organizations thereby, has been introduced. It's an advanced, pioneering idea riddled with complexities, even today.

However, its effect upon realization is immeasurable. Imagine a world free from meetings, relationship building, and hierarchical organizational paradigms. It is no mere fantasy—it represents a reachable reality. That reachability is affirmed in this article.

If anyone is earnest about realizing this, feel free to rely on me. Hire me, and as a Knowledge Architect, I will offer my support. Until next time.