3 ms·

I disagree, because putting the whole request in at the outset puts the responsibility on me, even if I'm not available. Consider the following exchange: Co-w

I disagree, because putting the whole request in at the outset puts the responsibility on me, even if I'm not available. Consider the following exchange: Co-worker: Hi, AA. Me: Hello. Co-worker: I need some help, are you available? Co-worker: Well, I'm actually past my shift, and you probably saw me available because I was reading an email. Can I hit you up in the morning? Coworker: Sure. ---VS----- Co-worker: Hi, AA. We have a client with a problem, and I could use your help. Please do X, Y, and Z. Okay thanks, bye. Next Morning, Boss: Why hasn't anyone responded to the client yet!?! Co-worker: Gee, I dunno. I told AA about it hours ago...

saghm 6y ago
If you have a boss that conditionally blames you for messages you haven't seen based on the content of those messages, I think you have a bigger problem than Slack decorum.
ogre_codes 6y ago
People understand that chat/ messaging/ Slack is asynchronous. There is no onus placed upon you here except perhaps in your hypothetical head. Far more likely is: > Co-worker: Hi, AA. We have a client with a problem, and I could use your help. Please do X, Y, and Z. Okay thanks, bye. > AA: Crickets... > Co-worker (5 minutes later): You there? > AA: Crickets... > Co-worker: Oops, just noticed it's 5:54, I should have known you'd have punched out already, I got it.
jt2190 6y ago
You’re describing a behavior that is highly frowned upon in the Israeli Defense Force, here described to Joel Spolsky by Tamir Nitzan: > As for the expressions (pronounced “rosh katan” – little head, vs. “rosh gadol” – big head). This expression comes from the IDF, and as most military language, doesn’t quite translate into normal language. A “rosh katan” (literally “little head”, and I actually think it is the original expression which derived most likely from “pinhead”, the contrast later came in as a complement) is someone that does exactly what he’s told. >[An] example: you tell a soldier to “go notify so-and-so that we will be ready for inspection at 1600”. By 1700 you’re curious, so you ask him “did you notify?”. [A “rosh katan’s”] answer might be “well I called his office and left a message”. A “rosh gadol” would likely say: “I called his office but got his voice mail, so I left a message. I called back an hour later but still got voice mail, so I called his cell phone and left a message there too. I tried him again an hour after that and he assured me he will be here by 1600. I called him again 20 minutes ago and he said he was on his way but stuck in traffic” (a real “rosh gadol” would have notified his C.O. of all this without being asked of course). https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/06/news-45/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/06/news-45/
- antisthenes 6y ago
  Keep in mind that variant 2 takes an exorbitant amount of effort compared to variant 1. If you're multitasking and have other responsibilities, it's not always prudent to give every task such detailed attention, especially if it requires you to context switch. It may work in the army, where you don't really have much creative/deep work going on, but I've seen those expectations fail in the workplace.
  - tracerbulletx 6y ago
    You can generalize this pretty easily by understanding what is important and what isn't. It doesn't matter how creative or deep you think your regular work is. If it is very important that this person gets to the meeting and you have been tasked with making that happen, then you should be behaving like in the second example regardless. If it's important they be there and you have other work with higher priority and you think you can't do both, then you should immediately communicate that and have the responsibility of getting through to the other person reassigned. If it's not important this person come, then everyone should be fine with a message and if they make it they make it but everyone should know that upfront.
anaerobicover 6y ago
I'm not sure I buy that example; if it's a time-sensitive issue, Co-worker can't just fire something off into the ether, receive no ACK, and then wash their hands of it. That's a deeply broken process. If they don't hear back from you in scenario 2, they should find someone else. If they absolutely need you then there should be some way they can escalate to a higher-priority channel (phone probably). (And I certainly hope you have an "on-call" status of some kind.)
jawns 6y ago
There's a happy medium, where you can give some indication about the nature of the request while recognizing that the person may not be available to tackle it right away: Co-worker: Hi, AA. We have a client with a problem, and I could use your help to do X, Y, and Z. Are you available? If you don't reply after a few minutes, it's clear that you're not available and they can seek help elsewhere with an on-the-clock or on-call resource.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  That’s better done by sending the request to a team channel, so everyone can see if anyone already answered (and learn from seeing the answer!) If it’s an emergency, page the oncall. If you are the oncall, page anyone you need, and then Slack/Zoom become realtime (at least for them).

saghm 6y ago

If you have a boss that conditionally blames you for messages you haven't seen based on the content of those messages, I think you have a bigger problem than Slack decorum.

ogre_codes 6y ago

People understand that chat/ messaging/ Slack is asynchronous. There is no onus placed upon you here except perhaps in your hypothetical head. Far more likely is: > Co-worker: Hi, AA. We have a client with a problem, and I could use your help. Please do X, Y, and Z. Okay thanks, bye. > AA: Crickets... > Co-worker (5 minutes later): You there? > AA: Crickets... > Co-worker: Oops, just noticed it's 5:54, I should have known you'd have punched out already, I got it.

jt2190 6y ago

You’re describing a behavior that is highly frowned upon in the Israeli Defense Force, here described to Joel Spolsky by Tamir Nitzan: > As for the expressions (pronounced “rosh katan” – little head, vs. “rosh gadol” – big head). This expression comes from the IDF, and as most military language, doesn’t quite translate into normal language. A “rosh katan” (literally “little head”, and I actually think it is the original expression which derived most likely from “pinhead”, the contrast later came in as a complement) is someone that does exactly what he’s told. >[An] example: you tell a soldier to “go notify so-and-so that we will be ready for inspection at 1600”. By 1700 you’re curious, so you ask him “did you notify?”. [A “rosh katan’s”] answer might be “well I called his office and left a message”. A “rosh gadol” would likely say: “I called his office but got his voice mail, so I left a message. I called back an hour later but still got voice mail, so I called his cell phone and left a message there too. I tried him again an hour after that and he assured me he will be here by 1600. I called him again 20 minutes ago and he said he was on his way but stuck in traffic” (a real “rosh gadol” would have notified his C.O. of all this without being asked of course). https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/06/news-45/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/06/news-45/

antisthenes 6y ago
Keep in mind that variant 2 takes an exorbitant amount of effort compared to variant 1. If you're multitasking and have other responsibilities, it's not always prudent to give every task such detailed attention, especially if it requires you to context switch. It may work in the army, where you don't really have much creative/deep work going on, but I've seen those expectations fail in the workplace.
- tracerbulletx 6y ago
  You can generalize this pretty easily by understanding what is important and what isn't. It doesn't matter how creative or deep you think your regular work is. If it is very important that this person gets to the meeting and you have been tasked with making that happen, then you should be behaving like in the second example regardless. If it's important they be there and you have other work with higher priority and you think you can't do both, then you should immediately communicate that and have the responsibility of getting through to the other person reassigned. If it's not important this person come, then everyone should be fine with a message and if they make it they make it but everyone should know that upfront.

anaerobicover 6y ago

I'm not sure I buy that example; if it's a time-sensitive issue, Co-worker can't just fire something off into the ether, receive no ACK, and then wash their hands of it. That's a deeply broken process. If they don't hear back from you in scenario 2, they should find someone else. If they absolutely need you then there should be some way they can escalate to a higher-priority channel (phone probably). (And I certainly hope you have an "on-call" status of some kind.)

jawns 6y ago

There's a happy medium, where you can give some indication about the nature of the request while recognizing that the person may not be available to tackle it right away: Co-worker: Hi, AA. We have a client with a problem, and I could use your help to do X, Y, and Z. Are you available? If you don't reply after a few minutes, it's clear that you're not available and they can seek help elsewhere with an on-the-clock or on-call resource.

erik_seaberg 6y ago
That’s better done by sending the request to a team channel, so everyone can see if anyone already answered (and learn from seeing the answer!) If it’s an emergency, page the oncall. If you are the oncall, page anyone you need, and then Slack/Zoom become realtime (at least for them).