19 ms·

Async communication is suitable to resolve some kind of issues. But it has two drawbacks: participants need to be competent at writing and reading prose (it’s h

• Benjammer 6y ago
  >For problems which are not well defined, and where a lot of decisions need to be taken, especially when they verge toward the arbitrary, it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out Easier in what way? I think it makes people less frustrated by having to think hard about a hard problem, and feels "better" when everyone is saying what they think without any barriers, but I would guess it's much worse at arriving at good solutions to challenging business problems. Especially in the case you describe, with many decision points. I cannot fathom how a group of people chatting can efficiently work through many decisions at once, without laying it all out on paper anyway, whether it's before or after the fact. None of the meeting conversation matters unless you have someone taking good notes and summarizing decisions. Which makes me think, why not just start with the writing part? How is one person's notes about what a bunch of people said during a real-time conversation going to be even remotely on the same level as the people themselves composing their thoughts in writing? The in person meeting just seems like a space to share emotions and make shows of power in front of others. I think async writing is much better (obviously nothing's perfect) for removing emotions from the discussion and forcing people to spend time thinking through their thoughts. The act of composing a written email, or composing a one-page spec document can do wonders for people ironing out their own thoughts and ideas. And CC (+BCC) is, imo, the greatest business tool being dropped nowadays in favor of synchronous comms. CC keeps people informed without wasting time or disrupting schedules. It also allows the bosses to keep a much better handle on the comms culture of the company, since they obviously cannot sit in on or observe every meeting. In person meetings have plenty of specific use cases, but I don't really understand the drive to make critical decisions synchronously in the moment during a meeting. Meetings are great for presentations, Q&A, gathering feedback, etc.
  • BeetleB 6y ago
    > and feels "better" when everyone is saying what they think without any barriers Except there are barriers: People can tell you immediately that they don't understand you before you go off and speak for too long. Whereas with asynchronous, you could write a large amount and people won't be able to comprehend it because you made a mistake early on. > I think async writing is much better (obviously nothing's perfect) for removing emotions from the discussion and forcing people to spend time thinking through their thoughts. I agree on the latter, and disagree on the former. Rarely have I seen an important decision being discussed async that is devoid of emotion. With async, emotions are harder to gauge. This does not lead to people giving others the benefit of the doubt. It more often leads to people misreading emotions. > And CC (+BCC) is, imo, the greatest business tool being dropped nowadays in favor of synchronous comms. CC keeps people informed without wasting time or disrupting schedules. It also allows the bosses to keep a much better handle on the comms culture of the company, since they obviously cannot sit in on or observe every meeting. "You know how many emails I get every day? Do you think I have time to read every email I get?" spoken by every manager/senior engineer in my company. (Although I'll admit, I prefer email to all other async comms I've seen. Pseudo-IM stuff is the worst). There are, for sure, problems with both forms of communications. Conducting good "live" discussions in a room is a skill, and most of the participants have to be proficient at it. The same will go for async communications. I think if there are serious, technical/tough issues to discuss, it is best to have it written up, with proper "counter" documents, and then get into a room to make the final decision, with everyone already well informed. It's a rare workplace where that will happen. People will respond to something well written with a one line objection on one minor aspect of the proposal, etc. I
  • watwut 6y ago
    1.) Taking notes and summarizing conclusions is massively faster then having that whole discussion in writing. 2.) Most people are not gifted writers and speakers. They have hard time to express themselves properly. The spoken communication is faster and pretty often someone else can help to rephrase it couple of times or ask series of clarifying questions until it makes sense. This process is looong or does not happen in writing. 3.) Quick turn on simple clarifying questions. 4.) Honorable mention: > The in person meeting just seems like a space to share emotions and make shows of power in front of others. Emotions and politics are part of being humans. Humans typically need to share emotions and react to other peoples emotions. Someone refusing the idea for emotional reasons is not something exceptional - and typically harder to deal with in writing. It is harder to recognize in writing and harder to respond to in writing. And I guarantee you that shows of power are crap in writing as much as they are in person. It does not disappear.
• duxup 6y ago
  Recently, I was so frustrated with some folks poor reading comprehension that I was thinking about an imaginary communication system that would allow for decision making where there were some rules: - No responding from mobile devices. The poor response rate is just too high. - The reader is quizzed on the the contents of the communication before they can respond (randomly generated quizzes might be amusing). - The reader has to retype the original communication themselves before they can respond.... - Timeout value, if no responses that pass the above tests in a given time frame, whomever asked gets to complete the task with no input and nobody can change the outcome for ... a week or so and everyone has to live with it. - Anyone who wants to change it after the timeout value better explain why they didn't ask before hand... no idea how this would work, yeah we're getting into the weeds here. Of course, these are all unworkable in a modern business environment but man ... I can dream that some folks would who make demands or provide input at least put a minimum amount of effort into things before they throw their given wrench into the works.
  • yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    FWIW, it doesn't have to be a "new communication channel", you just documented some best practices for email. > No responding from mobile devices. The poor response rate is just too high. If something was left implicit or de facto re-ask for it to be explicit or de jure. > The reader is quizzed on the the contents of the communication before they can respond (randomly generated quizzes might be amusing). > The reader has to retype the original communication themselves before they can respond.... A simple "What's you're rationale?" or if you're less confident "Sorry, I understand the action items and can execute them but I didn't follow the motivation. So I can do an even better job (or so I can make this decision without you next time), could you walk me through your thought process?" > Timeout value, if no responses that pass the above tests in a given time frame, whomever asked gets to complete the task with no input and nobody can change the outcome for ... a week or so and everyone has to live with it. > Anyone who wants to change it after the timeout value better explain why they didn't ask before hand... no idea how this would work, yeah we're getting into the weeds here. This is the most important email best practice that trips up junior workers. Make the default of your email your desired outcome. Instead of: "Does everyone approve?" then if people respond asking "Ok, when should I do it? Thursday?". Try it like this: "I'll make the change on Thursday. Please let me know if there are any concerns.". 1. Make the default response (i.e. no response) in your benefit. 2. Ensure there is a timeout value attached. None of this is difficult or theoretical, its just a set of best practices you can get your self and others used to.
• asjw 6y ago
  How can you trust someone's spoken words if they can't write? And what's the problem in your opinion with written iterations? I usually attend meetings, hours a day, when I have to repeat the same concepts over and over, multiple times, to the same people, because they just forget what we established hours before. There are people at my job setting up meetings just to "recap", which is a poor excuse for "we didn't take notes and/or we weren't listening and just said yes" At least emails are searchable...
  • tluyben2 6y ago
    It is my problem with meetings & calls; I have no issue with effective meetings, however, a lot of people I work with (but ofcourse not all), treat meetings and voice calls just as a reminder/recap. They basically do not remember most of anything and don’t read/write anything either. So the people who take notes, read the minutes and read the docs have to sit through hours or rehash per week. I cannot imagine how much time/money is lost by this in the world.
    • cutemonster 6y ago
      I wonder what type of organization / company is that? Eg fortune 500 or a government agency or a small tech startup? (What do you think about their recruitment process?)
• codingdave 6y ago
  > misinterpreted resulting in the loss of an async cycle. True, but readily fixed with "Can we talk about this when you have a minute?" Also, losing "an async cycle" is a completely alien concept to me. I've been working remotely for a decade, never heard that phrase, and not entirely sure why it matters. Does a conversation that takes 14 Slack messages make the business less efficient than one that only took 11? Honestly, I'm not trying to just nitpick, but why would a room full of people be beneficial to decisions "when they verge toward the arbitrary"? Wouldn't that be the perfect time for everyone to send their async opinions, and let a single decision-maker just decide? Large calls/meetings work when you don't know what you don't know - to get all the information on the table, and have all the knowledge in the same place at the same time. You talk, give answers where needed, assign some action items to people, and go back to your async lives. As far as the initial statement that you must be competent at writing and reading prose... I'd love to hear more about that than "it's harder than it sounds". I've worked remotely with people with dyslexia and reading disabilities and C-level personalities that refused to get in-depth in any single communication. And one guy who had all those traits - the CEO... and it worked fine. None of that stopped us from doing our jobs effectively. You did need to learn how your co-workers communicated, but let me assure you - we were not excellent writers, we just knew our co-workers well enough to know their communication styles. That is what remote work comes down to, at the end of it all. Not communication frameworks and rules of when to use what communication channel - but getting to know your team well enough that you know how to work together. If you do that, you succeed, whether remote or in an office.
  • abhayb 6y ago
    Hmm... I think the idea with synchronous communication is very much the same as it is with with synchronous method calls. Synchronous communication lets you break your thoughts down into smaller chunks and thus make them easier to understand. Synchronous methods do very much the same (at least how I write them). I like what you say about needing to "learn how your co-workers communicate[d]". Maybe that's the abstraction layer that makes async everything possible. Still a leaky abstraction and I'd prefer not to have it. But it might actually have worked for me over the last couple of months.
  • Leherenn 6y ago
• flukus 6y ago
  > it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out IME it isn't because they aren't an environment conducive to informed debate. It's easy to get everyone in the room to agree, but as soon as you get out and check specifics, think the problem through properly, research what's already in pace, etc, you realize the whole meeting was a waste or worse, you've just committed to something sub-optimal/impossible. An async "meeting" allow you to look for information so it's based in reality not best guesses, it gives you time to read necessary background info and do more research. These ultimately make for better decisions. They also don't waste the time of people that don't care.
  • cutemonster 6y ago
    > you've just committed to something sub-optimal/impossible What about never making decisions at meetings -- instead, let everyone think 1 week after the meeting, and make the decision asynchronously? Eg vote via email Combining meetings and async
    • devdas 6y ago
      Then there isn't much of a point in having a meeting, is there? Instead, send out a written proposal, require well supported written commentary on the ideas, and then then meeting is to take an actual decision.
      • cutemonster 6y ago
        Well, there're some benefits mentioned in other threads here, eg quickly sorting out misunderstandings > require well supported written commentary on the ideas That sounds good -- in that case I'd think it'd work fine both with and without meetings
• gregmac 6y ago
  > resulting in the loss of an async cycle. This is great way to think about this, thanks. Depending on the team and communication channel, the cycle time can be hours or even a day (not including weekends), and I think avoiding extra cycles has a significant impact on the way people communicate, whether they realize it or not. > For problems which are not well defined, and where a lot of decisions need to be taken, especially when they verge toward the arbitrary, it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out. A remote meeting can work too. If I find myself in strong disagreement with someone's statements (and maybe wanting to write an angry rebuttal), I find it's usually better to switch to a synchronous discussion. Most of the time it comes down to misinterpretation that takes 2 or 3 cycles to clear up, and in a sync conversation that can happen in a matter of minutes and with significantly shorter responses than the async equivalent requires. When you're responding to something in async communication, most people don't want to waste a cycle by just asking "What do you mean by 'x'?" -- and so instead will respond to their interpretation of 'x', often wasting many keystrokes on a misunderstanding. In a sync conversation starting by asking "What do you mean by 'x'?" is easy and low-effort, and in my experience results a much more constructive and positive discussion, regardless of which side the misunderstanding was on.
  • pdfernhout 6y ago
    You might find Dialogue Mapping using IBIS another useful tool in dealing with disagreements and wicked problems. http://cognexus.org/id41.htm http://cognexus.org/id41.htm
• starfallg 6y ago
  > For problems which are not well defined, and where a lot of decisions need to be taken, especially when they verge toward the arbitrary, it’s a lot easier to have people in a room and hash it out. AKA when random I/O is needed, minimizing latency is the key.
  • mjevans 6y ago
    Brainstorming can be a chatroom; this is a better meeting because note-taking is automated. However that should generate a list of items to follow-up on, and there need to be chances for validating, correcting, and following up on that process.
• brongondwana 6y ago
  Yes, totally agree with you here. Synchronising to make the decision, then writing it down for async later reference and to inform those who weren't included in the synchronous bit for whatever reason is the best mix. (which is exactly what agenda and minutes are for - they are the asynchronous preparation and followup)
• taphangum 6y ago
  I think that what it ultimately comes down to is empathy. What determines how smooth and effective a line of communication is. Why most people tend to feel 'exhausted' when communicating synchronously online is that it's usually not very synced at all (interruptions both online and off are constant). So makes empathy more difficult to cultivate. Async communication does seem to have more of an advantage here, as it is by definition a more thoughtful style of correspondence (writing a tutorial for example). And ironically, is a more synced style of communication, when the information passed on is actually being consumed. I touched on this, and the ways in which async communications can be made to be even more effective in a recent post on my blog: "Why Most Programming Tutorials Are So Hard To Understand – (And A Solution To This Problem)" - https://fromtoschool.com/why-most-programming-tutorials-are-so-hard-to-understand-and-a-solution-to-this-problem/ https://fromtoschool.com/why-most-programming-tutorials-are-....
• ezoe 6y ago
  We have real time text chat for decades but most people, after remote work become the norm thanks to the COVID-19, still prefer video chat rather than the efficient text chat. It's because most people are lacking the literacy. Even though they look like understanding the text, the reality is, they simply recognize a few seemingly important keywords and pretend they understand the text as a whole.
• pugworthy 6y ago
  > participants need to be competent at writing and reading prose (it’s harder than it sounds) and even with the best of care your ideas can easily be misinterpreted resulting in the loss of an async cycle. I get what you're saying here, but can't we replace writing and reading with speaking and listening, and claim somewhat the same thing for synchronous communications? To me, if you have employees who can't write or read effectively, that's as bad as employees who can't speak or listen effectively. If you have those kinds of people, you have hired sub-standard people.
  • magicalhippo 6y ago
    Sure, but at least at my company and with our customers, there's a large number of people who can speak and listen just fine, but are terrible at written communication. > If you have those kinds of people, you have hired sub-standard people. I used to think so as well, but from my work experience I'm leaning towards being good at written communication is not the norm.
• matwood 6y ago
  The problem with meetings is when they are the default. I find them much more productive when there has been written communication ahead of time. Writing forces everyone to put their thoughts in order and hopefully come into the meeting with a baseline understanding. Writing works so well in thought organization that part of my own meeting preparation is to write down my thoughts on the topic, even if just for myself.
• jstummbillig 6y ago
  > even with the best of care your ideas can easily be misinterpreted resulting in the loss of an async cycle This is not unique to async communication at all -- it is just becomes more apparent. I have experienced a lot of sync communication, in which people only seemingly agreed and, when prompted later or as apparent by their resulting actions, quite clearly understood very different things. There is also the very real issue of people getting increasingly tired and more agreeable during the course of a meeting. In async, when you stumble across something that doesn't gel with you, you might default to taking some extra time to think it through. Poor communication pops out that way. In sync communication you might let the same thing go -- not because of clearer signals or because it leads to a better outcome, but because you want things to end.
  • awakeasleep 6y ago
    Thank you for writing this out. It's scary how many posters are missing the fact that writing is difficult Because It Makes Miscommunication Explicit All the same misunderstandings - and more! - happen in spoken communications and discussions. The only difference is each party leaves without realizing it, and there is no record of what happened. (And if there are meeting notes, they only record the understanding of whoever wrote them)
• grogenaut 6y ago
  I can't say enough how much I love the Amazon style of disttill your thoughts into a doc (doesn't have to be long) then schedule a meeting where everyone gets time to read it first and comment inline, then discuss. As you scale out your influence this helps even more. Even friendly readers should take a bit of a grader/devil's advocate approach and call out anything that can improve. Any qq they ask a later person, less in the loop or more skeptical because they have their own ideas person will definitely ask. So fix those sections and your doc and your written communication skills will greatly improved through iteration. Also you get bit the distilled document that can be reused later (big win of written) and the high rate communication of a live meeting. And focus.
• ivankolev 6y ago
  Kudos for the eloquent put! I will quote your post next time this is brought up at my office.