4 ms·

> Written conversation tends to yield more well-formed and careful communication. This may reduce the quantity, but likely increases the quality. But that defe

by brmgb 6y ago

> Written conversation tends to yield more well-formed and careful communication. This may reduce the quantity, but likely increases the quality. But that defeats the purpose. The whole of the interactions mentioned (at least for me) is that they are spontaneous, informal, unstructured and not tracked. > b/c you didn't have lunch with your boss to chat about some random idea that flung into your head Companies are first and foremost collection of people. At some point, building a career means building ties with the rest of the company and there is only so much you can do out of strictly professional interactions. So yes, at some point, not having the ability to have lunch with your boss will hinder your career. > Certainly others may prefer this type of environment, but I would view this as a company with misplaced priorities and inefficient structures. Most employees are not robots. It's not only about being efficient. At some point things need to feel a bit human.

chronofar 6y ago
The paraphrased summary of what you're saying here is "I want to have conversational in-person interaction with people and I identify mainly with companies that value this highly." This is certainly fine and understandable, but is more of a personality trait than a company or productivity rule (or guiding function as you put it earlier). What you call "feel a bit human" I call "office politics." Forced superfluous off the cuff interaction sounds terrible to me. You say most employees are like you (not robots), I say it depends. The real answer here is there is no universal answer. Your guiding function is not the same as mine as we have different tolerances and wishes for interaction. Yours is not more right nor more creative in every case, just as mine is not more efficient nor more productive in all instances. You're right companies are collections of people, and there is no singular method to organizing them that makes sense in all cases as personalities are different. Usually though, autonomy is important to satisfaction. Letting your people choose their environment rather than forcing your own personality on them is more likely to help them, and in turn the organization, succeed.

by brmgb 6y ago

chronofar 6y ago

The paraphrased summary of what you're saying here is "I want to have conversational in-person interaction with people and I identify mainly with companies that value this highly." This is certainly fine and understandable, but is more of a personality trait than a company or productivity rule (or guiding function as you put it earlier). What you call "feel a bit human" I call "office politics." Forced superfluous off the cuff interaction sounds terrible to me. You say most employees are like you (not robots), I say it depends. The real answer here is there is no universal answer. Your guiding function is not the same as mine as we have different tolerances and wishes for interaction. Yours is not more right nor more creative in every case, just as mine is not more efficient nor more productive in all instances. You're right companies are collections of people, and there is no singular method to organizing them that makes sense in all cases as personalities are different. Usually though, autonomy is important to satisfaction. Letting your people choose their environment rather than forcing your own personality on them is more likely to help them, and in turn the organization, succeed.