4 ms·

> Wanting a synchronous conversation is a pretty arrogant grab of someone else's time. This is an assumption, and not always a valid one. There are plenty of

> Wanting a synchronous conversation is a pretty arrogant grab of someone else's time. This is an assumption, and not always a valid one. There are plenty of circumstances where synchronous comms are warranted, such as when matters are urgent for all parties or when the respondent has a reputation for losing track of async comms. Editing to add: I agree that "hey" and "hi" etc. are terrible openings. However, openings (incidentally also discouraged by the linked article) such as: > × "Hello, are you around?" > × "hi sophie - quick question." > × "You got a sec?" are absolutely fine in that they imply a level of urgency and need for synchronized communication. If someone's ideologically against it and inflexible towards accommodating urgency where appropriate, it's a productivity red flag. And I'm speaking as a modestly introverted manager who tries to avoid sync comms unless absolutely needed, but the thread seems to have gone off the deep end by arguing that sync comms are absolutely unnecessary.

JulianMorrison 6y ago
Those are good reasons for phoning, yes, but even then you'd be better if you're stuck in text to start off with as much urgent information as possible. "Hi Bob, the wobbulator sprocket is on fire and I need to you defusticate the gonksnaffler immediately."
- eganist 6y ago
  Unless the matter has an ephemerality requirement, in which case I message seeking immediate availability and then transition to a phone call. A signal call if the matter needs to be both ephemeral and confidential. Insisting on asynchronous communication for All The Things™ concerns me in that it shows that a person isn't adaptable to varying criticalities and sensitivities. The same goes for insisting on synchronous communication. TL;DR they both have their place, and they will always both have their place regardless of any one person's preference.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    Even in that case, "Are you around for a call?" gets the point across far better than "Hey, are you there?" Most people don't need to deal with ephemeral requirements. I've been in software for over a decade at a variety of businesses, and without fail the only times someone's been worried about talking over discoverable mediums they've been considering something that's anticompetitive or potentially illegal. The vast majority of people I've interacted with don't do things like that, and the few I do I don't want to work with.
    - eganist 6y ago
      > Even in that case, "Are you around for a call?" gets the point across far better than "Hey, are you there?" Can I ask the difference between these two in practical terms? Edit: > the only times someone's been worried about talking over discoverable mediums they've been considering something that's anticompetitive or potentially illegal. Interesting. In my case, it's without fail been circumstances where message control (specifically anti-forwarding) was paramount. I suppose it boils down to differences in our roles.
      - Arainach 6y ago
        "Are you around for a call" tells me that you have something to discuss that you think shouldn't be discussed over IM. In practice, it means something deeply confidential (usually related to HR or legal). "Are you there" means you're an intern or, worse, a full timer who hasn't figured out how to properly communicate yet who has some random question for me that you probably think is urgent but probably isn't.
        eganist 6y ago
        The former I agree with. The latter I've always interpreted to mean the former. I guess this is where our experiences diverge. I've never encountered what you described with the latter; it's always been someone who followed up with a call.
gregmac 6y ago
Absolutely, but it's still polite to schedule the synchronous call via async. "hey, need to talk urgently about x, are you available at 2?" or "...can you call me ASAP?" There's very few situations that warrant getting someone else to unexpectedly drop whatever they're doing and pay attention to you, right now. On the other hand, I'd actually go further and say there's lots of situations where sync communications is significantly more efficient. The most obvious example is when both sides are exchanging information in the "discovery" phase of a discussion where most of the back and forth is one-liner questions or statements - essentially where two parties are trying to sync up and get on a level playing field. Similarly, brainstorming over sync can save paragraphs of wasted keystrokes. Often what can take days over async can take minutes if done synchronously. The key is synchronous communications should be scheduled or solicited - even if done only a few minutes in advance.
- eganist 6y ago
  > Absolutely, but it's still polite to schedule the synchronous call via async. Maybe this is a failing on my part, but I'm having a hard time understanding how these: > × "Hello, are you around?" > × "hi sophie - quick question." > × "You got a sec?" (specifically the first and last of these) aren't a form of urgent scheduling. At the very least, the last one is unambiguously asking if there's immediate availability, which generally implies urgency of some form.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    The difference is those examples don't allow the listener to decide how urgent the matter is. If my boss tells me something is urgent, by definition it is. If anyone tells me it's an emergency, I drop what I'm doing and help—but it better be a real emergency. Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency.
    - eganist 6y ago
      > Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency. That's fine, and that's for you to decide. But Mike from Accounting may have a reason to withhold the details for a different channel or to mitigate against other potential risks. It's up to you to decide with the information you have whether it meets your standard of urgency.

JulianMorrison 6y ago

Those are good reasons for phoning, yes, but even then you'd be better if you're stuck in text to start off with as much urgent information as possible. "Hi Bob, the wobbulator sprocket is on fire and I need to you defusticate the gonksnaffler immediately."

eganist 6y ago
Unless the matter has an ephemerality requirement, in which case I message seeking immediate availability and then transition to a phone call. A signal call if the matter needs to be both ephemeral and confidential. Insisting on asynchronous communication for All The Things™ concerns me in that it shows that a person isn't adaptable to varying criticalities and sensitivities. The same goes for insisting on synchronous communication. TL;DR they both have their place, and they will always both have their place regardless of any one person's preference.
- Arainach 6y ago
  Even in that case, "Are you around for a call?" gets the point across far better than "Hey, are you there?" Most people don't need to deal with ephemeral requirements. I've been in software for over a decade at a variety of businesses, and without fail the only times someone's been worried about talking over discoverable mediums they've been considering something that's anticompetitive or potentially illegal. The vast majority of people I've interacted with don't do things like that, and the few I do I don't want to work with.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > Even in that case, "Are you around for a call?" gets the point across far better than "Hey, are you there?" Can I ask the difference between these two in practical terms? Edit: > the only times someone's been worried about talking over discoverable mediums they've been considering something that's anticompetitive or potentially illegal. Interesting. In my case, it's without fail been circumstances where message control (specifically anti-forwarding) was paramount. I suppose it boils down to differences in our roles.
    - Arainach 6y ago
      "Are you around for a call" tells me that you have something to discuss that you think shouldn't be discussed over IM. In practice, it means something deeply confidential (usually related to HR or legal). "Are you there" means you're an intern or, worse, a full timer who hasn't figured out how to properly communicate yet who has some random question for me that you probably think is urgent but probably isn't.
      - eganist 6y ago
        The former I agree with. The latter I've always interpreted to mean the former. I guess this is where our experiences diverge. I've never encountered what you described with the latter; it's always been someone who followed up with a call.

gregmac 6y ago

Absolutely, but it's still polite to schedule the synchronous call via async. "hey, need to talk urgently about x, are you available at 2?" or "...can you call me ASAP?" There's very few situations that warrant getting someone else to unexpectedly drop whatever they're doing and pay attention to you, right now. On the other hand, I'd actually go further and say there's lots of situations where sync communications is significantly more efficient. The most obvious example is when both sides are exchanging information in the "discovery" phase of a discussion where most of the back and forth is one-liner questions or statements - essentially where two parties are trying to sync up and get on a level playing field. Similarly, brainstorming over sync can save paragraphs of wasted keystrokes. Often what can take days over async can take minutes if done synchronously. The key is synchronous communications should be scheduled or solicited - even if done only a few minutes in advance.

eganist 6y ago
> Absolutely, but it's still polite to schedule the synchronous call via async. Maybe this is a failing on my part, but I'm having a hard time understanding how these: > × "Hello, are you around?" > × "hi sophie - quick question." > × "You got a sec?" (specifically the first and last of these) aren't a form of urgent scheduling. At the very least, the last one is unambiguously asking if there's immediate availability, which generally implies urgency of some form.
- airstrike 6y ago
  The difference is those examples don't allow the listener to decide how urgent the matter is. If my boss tells me something is urgent, by definition it is. If anyone tells me it's an emergency, I drop what I'm doing and help—but it better be a real emergency. Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency.
  - eganist 6y ago
    > Now, if Mike from Accounting wants to talk urgently, I may not be available because I have my own list of urgent things to tackle. I will try to carve out time and prioritize his request, but I am in no way committed to his personal sense of urgency. That's fine, and that's for you to decide. But Mike from Accounting may have a reason to withhold the details for a different channel or to mitigate against other potential risks. It's up to you to decide with the information you have whether it meets your standard of urgency.