3 ms·

>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 h

>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.

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.