5 ms·

Platform as a Service team takes even-handed approach to meetings

54 points by idlemind 10y ago

gjvc 10y ago
"In my experience, people don’t dominate a conversation or interrupt others because they are unkind or power-hungry." Suggests the author needs more experience of the workplace.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Honestly, some people can spend their lives immersed in reality, but they never seem to actually realize what's going on. I'm not sure whether to pity, or envy, the oblivious.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  I've encountered an environment where they used something similar it was ridiculous. It turns passive aggressiveness to 11, there will always be rude people or people with poor conversations skills. However they are usually toned down because there is a limit to how much you can interrupt someone before people tell you off, especially if there is a line manager or a supervisor present. Now you get stuck with some douche constantly using the disagree sign to your face, and worse it can be maintained throughout your entire speech forcing you to yield or tell them to sod off which means you lose. It also doesn't really help new or shy team members if they don't want to express an opinion they won't regardless if it's verbal or smoke signals. Improving meetings can easily be done by having a meeting captain and a clear agenda.
- sjtgraham 10y ago
  IMO it's important to assume positive intent.
- Kadin 10y ago
  I think the author comes across a bit doe-eyed (although this is perhaps just them taking a necessarily politic angle, given the venue of the article), but I also think what they're saying is generally true. The vast majority of people aren't actively malicious. I'd go so far as to say the majority of people who would be described by their colleagues as "assholes" don't get up in the morning planning to be shitty. Typically, at least in my experience, it's the product of a vast intent / ability gap, usually in communications / EQ-type skills. They honestly think (generally, overestimate!) they're being constructive or "honest". It'd be easier if they were all just sociopaths.
- pionar 10y ago
  I'll admit, sometimes I interrupt others in meetings. I don't do it to be power-hungry or an asshole, I'm just excited about my thought. I tell all my team members to call me out when I've interrupted. I usually catch myself, though, and apologize profusely.
Cozumel 10y ago
Sounds like an episode of The Office!
shiftoutbox 10y ago
English motherfucker do you speak it ?
bumblebeard 10y ago
I would probably start looking for somewhere else to work if I had to use special hand signals during meetings.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  Explanation for downvote: it doesn't contribute to the thread at all. You could have mentioned why you object to using hand signals.
joezydeco 10y ago
Love the bunny rabbit signal for "disagree". Very cute.
- vacri 10y ago
  It's weird that they chose the English-speaking-world's hand gesture for "stop" as their "agree", especially when there's already "thumbs up" and "ok" out there.
  - PaulRobinson 10y ago
    The thumbs up gesture is an offensive gesture to Muslim cultures. Equivalent to the middle finger in US culture. The "OK" circle with thumb and finger is offensive in Southern European countries (e.g. Greece), also somewhere around the same level of offence as the middle finger. GDS might be part of the British civil service, but the UK is still a multicultural society with workers from all over the World here, including I believe, GDS. That might change in the next two years, but right now, it's who we are (and I personally hope it's who we remain in years to come). It's not "political correctness gone mad" to choose a hand signal that isn't offensive over one that a third of the room might find offensive. It's just polite.
    - legostormtroopr 10y ago
      No body said "political correctness gone mad", you are projecting. What was said was "It's weird that they chose the English-speaking-world's hand gesture for "stop" as their "agree"" - which it is, I see two hands palm up at me and I see "stop".
    - hanoz 10y ago
      It doesn't get much more offensive than raising two palms at someone speaking, the universal shut up already gesture.
    - briandear 10y ago
      Polite doesn't mean creating cognitive dissonance. "Point of order" looks like the word for vagina. And agree looks like the word for stop. Must one run their hand signals through a worldwide hand signals dictionary to assure non-offense? That's ridiculous, they're a British government agency and thus British is the only culture they should consider. Words and gestures mean different things in different places, if some Greek Muslim working for the U.K. Government is offended, that's too bad. They ought to get over it.
transitorykris 10y ago
The Lean Coffee hand signals includes a couple others that aren't in this blog post. http://www.lovelifepractice.com/practice/using-hand-signals-for-better-meetings/ http://www.lovelifepractice.com/practice/using-hand-signals-... Another hand signal I've used in large groups is pointing at a person who has a hand up (wants to say something). It's a useful signal to the person speaking and can avoid people stepping on each other to speak next.
- peteretep 10y ago
  Ironically I've used exactly this to generally shut down interrupters I didn't want. Point at them when you can see they're about to interrupt and then keep talking. Indefinitely.
MaxLeiter 10y ago
Is there a reason they don't use something like parliamentary procedure?
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  Likely it is too formal, extremely cumbersome, and implies everybody has a vote. When I am talking to a team I want to know what they think, ideally as immediately as possible (which visual clues allow) but don't want to have to preplan anything.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    Parliamentary procedure really isn't cumbersome; you can use as much or as little of it as you need. It's well-designed for organisations seeking to have discussion and reach decisions, even when the group may be ultimately unable to come to unanimity. And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote?
    - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
      > And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote? No. It would largely depend on the structure of the team as to what is optimal, however it is obvious that even though the h/w specialist should be involved in the discussion of the DB system we use on the device it is the data specialist who makes the decision. Many decisions have many more involed parties than decisionmakers for good reason.
      - wtbob 10y ago
        Good point. Well, FWIW parliamentary procedure can still handle non-voting parties, e.g. the non-voting representatives of U.S. territories in the U.S. Congress.
wollstonecraft 10y ago
Historical note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement_hand_signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement_hand_signals
- sjellis 10y ago
  Yeah, I think that a key point here is that it is a way of keeping meetings on track with larger groups. Once you have a bunch of people who have strong opinions about the current topic of discussion, then you will get times when multiple people want to express themselves at the same time. The person running the meeting may then have to step in and act as traffic cop, but they can only be reactive, after people start talking over each other or whatever. It can take a combination of a good chair and mutual goodwill to sort out the communication traffic jam. It's also rough on the people who aren't assertive, as the article says.
tomjen3 10y ago
Personally I think they might be more useful as a secondary bandwidth channel: you can now see, while you speak, if the majority needs the point clarified.
Deepfried 10y ago
The hand signal for point of order is very similar to BSL for vagina. I'm not sure they consulted any Deaf people.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  This is what I was thinking[0]. There are loads of really expressive BSL signs that are more than appropriate for this kind of discussion. This is unsurprising as deaf people have group conversations too! As a note for those without experience of BSL, the signs are often dynamic and where consensus/voting is being expressed you usually hold the last part of the sign. The occupy signs are deliberately chosen to be readable from really great distances and not being part of a larger signing system they are hard to expand upon. [0] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/vagina http://www.signbsl.com/sign/vagina [1] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/agree http://www.signbsl.com/sign/agree [2] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/disagree http://www.signbsl.com/sign/disagree
  - Terretta 10y ago
    What an oddly helpful but unhelpful site. Hiding the symbols behind videos means I can't see what the symbol is as the people haven't made it yet, unless I play the video. Couldn't they have at least one sketch or marked up jpeg showing the symbol or gesture? Weird.
    - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
      It's made completely by contributors in their own time. It's also much harder to create a sketch than simply record yourself signing. And sketched signs are pretty much useless for everything except finger spelling
sgt101 10y ago
No evidence, no credit!
cs02rm0 10y ago
The GDS have done some great work. Nice to get a gentle reminder that they're still public sector crazies once in a while. ;)
aisofteng 10y ago
I find mechanisms like this to be silly and childish. We're all adults; part of life is learning how to communicate and how to be heard - more generally, how to function in a group. If you haven't figured out how to function properly to the point that you need a system of hand signals in meetings, then it is worth it to look at why your development has been stunted, perhaps with a therapist. Similarly to that other commenter who didn't give a reason, I would also immediately start looking for work if my workplace implemented this.

54 points by idlemind 10y ago

gjvc 10y ago

"In my experience, people don’t dominate a conversation or interrupt others because they are unkind or power-hungry." Suggests the author needs more experience of the workplace.

M_Grey 10y ago
Honestly, some people can spend their lives immersed in reality, but they never seem to actually realize what's going on. I'm not sure whether to pity, or envy, the oblivious.
dogma1138 10y ago
I've encountered an environment where they used something similar it was ridiculous. It turns passive aggressiveness to 11, there will always be rude people or people with poor conversations skills. However they are usually toned down because there is a limit to how much you can interrupt someone before people tell you off, especially if there is a line manager or a supervisor present. Now you get stuck with some douche constantly using the disagree sign to your face, and worse it can be maintained throughout your entire speech forcing you to yield or tell them to sod off which means you lose. It also doesn't really help new or shy team members if they don't want to express an opinion they won't regardless if it's verbal or smoke signals. Improving meetings can easily be done by having a meeting captain and a clear agenda.
sjtgraham 10y ago
IMO it's important to assume positive intent.
Kadin 10y ago
I think the author comes across a bit doe-eyed (although this is perhaps just them taking a necessarily politic angle, given the venue of the article), but I also think what they're saying is generally true. The vast majority of people aren't actively malicious. I'd go so far as to say the majority of people who would be described by their colleagues as "assholes" don't get up in the morning planning to be shitty. Typically, at least in my experience, it's the product of a vast intent / ability gap, usually in communications / EQ-type skills. They honestly think (generally, overestimate!) they're being constructive or "honest". It'd be easier if they were all just sociopaths.
pionar 10y ago
I'll admit, sometimes I interrupt others in meetings. I don't do it to be power-hungry or an asshole, I'm just excited about my thought. I tell all my team members to call me out when I've interrupted. I usually catch myself, though, and apologize profusely.

Cozumel 10y ago

Sounds like an episode of The Office!

shiftoutbox 10y ago

English motherfucker do you speak it ?

bumblebeard 10y ago

I would probably start looking for somewhere else to work if I had to use special hand signals during meetings.

lucb1e 10y ago
Explanation for downvote: it doesn't contribute to the thread at all. You could have mentioned why you object to using hand signals.

joezydeco 10y ago

Love the bunny rabbit signal for "disagree". Very cute.

vacri 10y ago
It's weird that they chose the English-speaking-world's hand gesture for "stop" as their "agree", especially when there's already "thumbs up" and "ok" out there.
- PaulRobinson 10y ago
  The thumbs up gesture is an offensive gesture to Muslim cultures. Equivalent to the middle finger in US culture. The "OK" circle with thumb and finger is offensive in Southern European countries (e.g. Greece), also somewhere around the same level of offence as the middle finger. GDS might be part of the British civil service, but the UK is still a multicultural society with workers from all over the World here, including I believe, GDS. That might change in the next two years, but right now, it's who we are (and I personally hope it's who we remain in years to come). It's not "political correctness gone mad" to choose a hand signal that isn't offensive over one that a third of the room might find offensive. It's just polite.
  - legostormtroopr 10y ago
    No body said "political correctness gone mad", you are projecting. What was said was "It's weird that they chose the English-speaking-world's hand gesture for "stop" as their "agree"" - which it is, I see two hands palm up at me and I see "stop".
  - hanoz 10y ago
    It doesn't get much more offensive than raising two palms at someone speaking, the universal shut up already gesture.
  - briandear 10y ago
    Polite doesn't mean creating cognitive dissonance. "Point of order" looks like the word for vagina. And agree looks like the word for stop. Must one run their hand signals through a worldwide hand signals dictionary to assure non-offense? That's ridiculous, they're a British government agency and thus British is the only culture they should consider. Words and gestures mean different things in different places, if some Greek Muslim working for the U.K. Government is offended, that's too bad. They ought to get over it.

transitorykris 10y ago

The Lean Coffee hand signals includes a couple others that aren't in this blog post. http://www.lovelifepractice.com/practice/using-hand-signals-for-better-meetings/ http://www.lovelifepractice.com/practice/using-hand-signals-... Another hand signal I've used in large groups is pointing at a person who has a hand up (wants to say something). It's a useful signal to the person speaking and can avoid people stepping on each other to speak next.

peteretep 10y ago
Ironically I've used exactly this to generally shut down interrupters I didn't want. Point at them when you can see they're about to interrupt and then keep talking. Indefinitely.

MaxLeiter 10y ago

Is there a reason they don't use something like parliamentary procedure?

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
Likely it is too formal, extremely cumbersome, and implies everybody has a vote. When I am talking to a team I want to know what they think, ideally as immediately as possible (which visual clues allow) but don't want to have to preplan anything.
- wtbob 10y ago
  Parliamentary procedure really isn't cumbersome; you can use as much or as little of it as you need. It's well-designed for organisations seeking to have discussion and reach decisions, even when the group may be ultimately unable to come to unanimity. And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote?
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    > And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote? No. It would largely depend on the structure of the team as to what is optimal, however it is obvious that even though the h/w specialist should be involved in the discussion of the DB system we use on the device it is the data specialist who makes the decision. Many decisions have many more involed parties than decisionmakers for good reason.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      Good point. Well, FWIW parliamentary procedure can still handle non-voting parties, e.g. the non-voting representatives of U.S. territories in the U.S. Congress.

wollstonecraft 10y ago

Historical note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement_hand_signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement_hand_signals

sjellis 10y ago
Yeah, I think that a key point here is that it is a way of keeping meetings on track with larger groups. Once you have a bunch of people who have strong opinions about the current topic of discussion, then you will get times when multiple people want to express themselves at the same time. The person running the meeting may then have to step in and act as traffic cop, but they can only be reactive, after people start talking over each other or whatever. It can take a combination of a good chair and mutual goodwill to sort out the communication traffic jam. It's also rough on the people who aren't assertive, as the article says.

tomjen3 10y ago

Personally I think they might be more useful as a secondary bandwidth channel: you can now see, while you speak, if the majority needs the point clarified.

Deepfried 10y ago

The hand signal for point of order is very similar to BSL for vagina. I'm not sure they consulted any Deaf people.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago
This is what I was thinking[0]. There are loads of really expressive BSL signs that are more than appropriate for this kind of discussion. This is unsurprising as deaf people have group conversations too! As a note for those without experience of BSL, the signs are often dynamic and where consensus/voting is being expressed you usually hold the last part of the sign. The occupy signs are deliberately chosen to be readable from really great distances and not being part of a larger signing system they are hard to expand upon. [0] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/vagina http://www.signbsl.com/sign/vagina [1] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/agree http://www.signbsl.com/sign/agree [2] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/disagree http://www.signbsl.com/sign/disagree
- Terretta 10y ago
  What an oddly helpful but unhelpful site. Hiding the symbols behind videos means I can't see what the symbol is as the people haven't made it yet, unless I play the video. Couldn't they have at least one sketch or marked up jpeg showing the symbol or gesture? Weird.
  - Normal_gaussian 10y ago
    It's made completely by contributors in their own time. It's also much harder to create a sketch than simply record yourself signing. And sketched signs are pretty much useless for everything except finger spelling

sgt101 10y ago

No evidence, no credit!

cs02rm0 10y ago

The GDS have done some great work. Nice to get a gentle reminder that they're still public sector crazies once in a while. ;)

aisofteng 10y ago

I find mechanisms like this to be silly and childish. We're all adults; part of life is learning how to communicate and how to be heard - more generally, how to function in a group. If you haven't figured out how to function properly to the point that you need a system of hand signals in meetings, then it is worth it to look at why your development has been stunted, perhaps with a therapist. Similarly to that other commenter who didn't give a reason, I would also immediately start looking for work if my workplace implemented this.