Remote Team Leadership: Lessons from Indonesian Startups
Managing 4 engineering squads across Indonesia taught me that great remote work isn't about overcoming cultural differences—it's about leveraging regional communication styles as strategic advantages.
Remote Team Leadership: Lessons from Indonesian Startups
When I managed 4 engineering squads across Jakarta, Surabaya, Yogyakarta, and Palembang, I discovered something fascinating: Indonesia's regional communication styles created more complex remote leadership challenges than most international teams face.
My Jakarta engineers were direct and efficient—"tanpa basa basi," straight to technical solutions. My Yogyakarta engineers were thoughtful and diplomatic—"muter-muter dan halus," carefully considering relationships and context before decisions.
Managing these different Indonesian cultural approaches remotely taught me that great distributed teams aren't built by forcing uniformity—they're built by orchestrating diversity as a strategic advantage.
Understanding Team Dynamics Through Psychology
Beyond Cultural Stereotypes
Rather than assuming extreme regional differences, I used systematic psychology tools to understand each individual's communication and working style:
DISC Assessments: Helped identify who preferred direct communication (D-style) vs. collaborative consensus-building (S-style), regardless of regional background
MBTI Framework: Understanding thinking vs. feeling decision-makers helped structure code review processes that worked for different cognitive styles
Graphology Analysis: Provided insights into individual stress patterns and communication preferences during high-pressure deadlines
Book-Based Surveys: Each book we read included practical assessment tools - from "Crucial Conversations" communication style inventories to "Deep Work" focus preference evaluations
Key Insight: The psychology tools revealed that communication preferences crossed regional lines - some Jakarta engineers preferred consensus-building while some Yogyakarta engineers were very direct. Individual assessment was more valuable than cultural assumptions.
Book-Based Problem Solving: Psychology Meets Engineering
Responsive Learning Culture
Rather than predetermined curricula, our bi-weekly book selection responded directly to real team challenges gathered from my 1:1s and emerging issues:
Book Survey Application: Each book included practical assessment tools that we immediately applied to current problems. If engineers were struggling with focus during sprint planning, we'd read "Deep Work" and use its productivity assessments. If code review discussions were becoming tense, we'd dive into "Crucial Conversations" with its communication style inventories.
Example Problem-Book Cycle: When our acquisition and registration system for user credentials became a source of team conflict (different engineers had strong opinions about security vs. usability trade-offs), we selected "Crucial Conversations" and used its conflict resolution frameworks to structure our technical discussions.
Three Years of Compound Learning at Warung Pintar
Year 1: Basic frameworks and individual understanding
Year 2-3: Same books revisited with deeper application
Key Books on Rotation:
The Compound Effect: By year 3, when we discussed "Atomic Habits" again, engineers could reference previous applications, share what they'd actually tried from earlier readings, and dive into much more nuanced discussions about habit formation in engineering practices.
Shared Technical Language: By year 2, when discussing "Effective Engineer" concepts, team members could reference specific examples from previous implementations. Conversations became more sophisticated: "Remember when we discussed leverage from last year's reading? I think this automation project is exactly that kind of high-leverage activity."
Cross-Reference Learning: Engineers started connecting concepts across books without prompting: "This deployment process reminds me of the habit stacking we discussed from 'Atomic Habits,' but we need to apply the crucial conversation framework to get stakeholder buy-in."
Strategic Board Gaming for Real Team Challenges
Games That Mirror Engineering Problems
Secret Hitler: This social deduction game became our most valuable team exercise. Engineers had to share information, build trust, and coordinate under pressure—exactly like incident response scenarios.
Real Application: After a session where miscommunication led to "fascist victory," we redesigned our incident response protocols. The game taught us that withholding information (even with good intentions) could harm the entire system.
Terraforming Mars: The engine-building mechanics perfectly mirrored our technical architecture challenges. Players had to balance immediate needs with long-term system optimization while coordinating shared resources.
Direct Translation: One memorable session where poor early-game coordination led to resource conflicts became the framework for our microservices dependency management. We realized our services were competing for shared resources instead of building complementary systems.
Practical Communication Solutions
The Real Challenge
During our acquisition and registration system development, engineers had different comfort levels with challenging technical decisions in real-time discussions.
Solution Framework
Async Technical Communication:
Sync Opportunities:
Case Study: Acquisition System Architecture
The Challenge: Different engineers had strong opinions about security vs. usability trade-offs in our user credential system.
Traditional Approach: Force consensus in meetings or let senior engineer decide unilaterally.
Our Solution: Used an RFC for the security architecture decisions. Jakarta engineers provided immediate feedback on implementation complexity via PR comments, while Yogyakarta engineers contributed comprehensive security analysis through structured RFC responses.
Result: The final solution incorporated both rapid iteration feedback and thorough security considerations. Everyone contributed their communication strengths to technical decisions, leading to better architecture and higher team satisfaction.
Building Trust Through Systematic Understanding
The "Know Your Team" Approach
Indonesian culture taught me that trust isn't built through proximity—it's built through understanding how each person works best and creating systems that leverage their strengths.
Weekly 1:1 Structure:
1. Current Challenges (10 minutes): What's blocking you technically or personally?
2. Communication Preferences (5 minutes): How do you prefer to receive feedback or share concerns?
3. Growth Discussion (10 minutes): What are you learning? What do you want to learn?
4. Team Dynamics (5 minutes): How are cross-team interactions working for you?
Monthly Psychology Check-ins:
Measurable Cultural Success
Team Health: Achieved highest engagement scores across all Sirclo Group engineering teams, measured through quarterly culture surveys.
Technical Collaboration: 30% increase in code review participation, with contributions coming more evenly across all regional teams.
Knowledge Sharing: 40% of all tech teams participated in bi-weekly book sharing sessions, creating cross-team learning culture that extended beyond my direct reports.
Cultural Bridge Success: Zero escalated conflicts between communication styles over 18 months, despite managing technically complex, high-pressure projects.
Innovation Through Diversity: Technical solutions started incorporating different regional approaches—Jakarta speed with Javanese thoroughness, Surabaya pragmatism with Palembang quality focus.
The Community-First Engineering Mindset
Collective Problem-Solving
Instead of assigning complex problems to individual "heroes," we approached technical challenges as community learning opportunities:
Architecture Reviews: Not "senior engineer decides" but "team designs together through structured discussion"
Incident Response: Cross-regional debugging sessions with real-time knowledge sharing
Performance Optimization: Team-wide learning initiatives where everyone contributed insights
Knowledge Sharing as Cultural Value
We institutionalized collaborative learning:
Why Indonesian Regional Diversity Matters for Tech Leadership
The future of Indonesian tech isn't about creating uniform "global" engineering cultures. It's about leveraging our incredible regional diversity as a competitive advantage.
Key Insights:
1. Communication Orchestration: Different Indonesian cultures contribute different strengths to technical teams
2. Shared Learning: Books and games create common frameworks while respecting cultural differences
3. Psychology-Informed Leadership: Understanding individual differences matters more than regional stereotypes
4. Authenticity Over Uniformity: Teams perform better when communication approaches are leveraged, not eliminated
Managing across Jakarta's directness, Java's thoughtfulness, Surabaya's pragmatism, and Palembang's precision taught me that Indonesia's regional diversity is a strategic asset for building exceptional distributed engineering teams.
The best remote engineering cultures aren't built by copying what works in Silicon Valley. They're built by understanding what works for your specific team—across cultures, personalities, and contexts—and creating systems that help everyone contribute their best work.
---Leading distributed engineering teams in Indonesia? I'd love to hear about your experiences with regional diversity and remote culture building. Connect with me on [LinkedIn](https://linkedin.com/in/syanmil) or [send me an email](mailto:syanmil@gmail.com).