7 ms·

>One group really prioritizes synchro comm for "emotional nuance" etc. The other group prioritizes written text's dense information content and searchability.

>One group really prioritizes synchro comm for "emotional nuance" etc. The other group prioritizes written text's dense information content and searchability. Don't forget the usefulness of email when you need the ability to reference past conversations. For some people, a faulty memory is a finely honed art.

wirrbel 5y ago
that's why I send around meeting notes regularly. THEY hate it.
- gtirloni 5y ago
  I stopped doing that because people take it the wrong way. Initially, I was just trying to be helpful with the notes (so people wouldn't forget what was discussed, people who could participate could catch up, etc). But I started noticing some people were looking at the meeting notes as if I was holding a gun at their heads for what they said during the meetings.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be "in your face" but it has to have the main points and especially the future action items people are taking
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > some people were looking at the meeting notes as if I was holding a gun at their heads Ok, so… I’m usually super cynical, but how do you know you’re not projecting here? I know people that do this and as far as I can tell, they’re always appreciated. More commonly I see people ignoring those summaries than being threatened by them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >But I started noticing some people were looking at the meeting notes as if I was holding a gun at their heads for what they said during the meetings. My experience (as technical resource/lead and project manager) has been to make sure that meeting notes include all agenda items and the action items associated with them. However, I always make explicit that this is my understanding and request feedback from all participants as to the accuracy, schedule and scope of action items. I suppose that comes from long experience where you're given responsibility for ensuring the success of an effort/project but not given the concomitant authority to compel action. That requires consensus building and buy in from all stakeholders. Often, that's not an issue when the entire organization is focused on a singular product/service. But in large organizations, building consensus among the stakeholders is absolutely necessary for success. In smaller organizations this is less of an issue, as someone with authority over all aspects of cross-functional efforts is likely directly involved. As such, the metaphorical "this is going to be done. Do it now." coming from a person who can directly affect your compensation and continued employment is extremely effective. That's not so in large organizations where authority is more broadly distributed. It occurs to me that differences in the size and structure of an organization can have significant impact on how such processes evolve and either thrive or die.
  - wirrbel 5y ago
    It helps to screen share your notes so everyone is on the same page of what is written down which keeps everyone from "exaggerating" in the meeting and being later on surprised about that what they said is in your shared notes.
- lbriner 5y ago
  Meeting notes can easily become noise. One of the big dangers of meetings is spending lots of time talking and not making specific actions to make something happen. Instead of minutes, it would be better in my opinion to put any relevant points into the relevant tool: Trello, Jira, Teams Tasks or whatever gets used. It's then easy to continue working with, if you are a bit wrong, you don't need another email with corrections, someone can just edit the task details or add more to it.
  - wirrbel 5y ago
    If I meet with people over a jira ticket, the notes will go in a comment on that ticket, etc. this is not a contradiction. Also, I don't think that most meeting notes will or should be read in the far future, but I think they are invaluable to keep the bullshitting at bay. Probably also depends a lot on your work context. I work in a large corporation, so a lot of time is spent negotiating between departments and the culture isn't very much trust based which is totally different from my previous job in a very small company where essentially social control to be honest was a lot higher.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I like it. I can’t be in all meetings all the time, but I can read all the meeting notes and follow up if I have to. Unfortunately, nobody sents any meeting notes, and they decide things that later get cited as ‘it was decided’, and I have to track back through history (and a lot of unwilling people) to figure out that ‘it’ was decided by two PM’s having a meeting at 12am with nobody relevant present. Who then tell me to be in meetings if I want to have any influence on their decisions.
flohofwoe 5y ago
I bet this is exactly why some people prefer direct communication that doesn't leave a trace ;)
- gtirloni 5y ago
  I agree. Every time something important starts getting discussed, people want to jump in a video call so every history is erased afterwards.
  - lbriner 5y ago
    That is a cynical assumption. I think in most cases, people don't want eternal back-and-forth that can happen with emails when it can make sense to have a single conversation where the objections can quickly be noted/considered and the subtlety can be understood. Of course, in some cases, this has disadvantages but like most things, we should avoid making such absolute statements and allow intelligent people to work out whether written or spoken is a better idea for each topic.

wirrbel 5y ago

that's why I send around meeting notes regularly. THEY hate it.

gtirloni 5y ago
I stopped doing that because people take it the wrong way. Initially, I was just trying to be helpful with the notes (so people wouldn't forget what was discussed, people who could participate could catch up, etc). But I started noticing some people were looking at the meeting notes as if I was holding a gun at their heads for what they said during the meetings.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be "in your face" but it has to have the main points and especially the future action items people are taking
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > some people were looking at the meeting notes as if I was holding a gun at their heads Ok, so… I’m usually super cynical, but how do you know you’re not projecting here? I know people that do this and as far as I can tell, they’re always appreciated. More commonly I see people ignoring those summaries than being threatened by them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >But I started noticing some people were looking at the meeting notes as if I was holding a gun at their heads for what they said during the meetings. My experience (as technical resource/lead and project manager) has been to make sure that meeting notes include all agenda items and the action items associated with them. However, I always make explicit that this is my understanding and request feedback from all participants as to the accuracy, schedule and scope of action items. I suppose that comes from long experience where you're given responsibility for ensuring the success of an effort/project but not given the concomitant authority to compel action. That requires consensus building and buy in from all stakeholders. Often, that's not an issue when the entire organization is focused on a singular product/service. But in large organizations, building consensus among the stakeholders is absolutely necessary for success. In smaller organizations this is less of an issue, as someone with authority over all aspects of cross-functional efforts is likely directly involved. As such, the metaphorical "this is going to be done. Do it now." coming from a person who can directly affect your compensation and continued employment is extremely effective. That's not so in large organizations where authority is more broadly distributed. It occurs to me that differences in the size and structure of an organization can have significant impact on how such processes evolve and either thrive or die.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  It helps to screen share your notes so everyone is on the same page of what is written down which keeps everyone from "exaggerating" in the meeting and being later on surprised about that what they said is in your shared notes.
lbriner 5y ago
Meeting notes can easily become noise. One of the big dangers of meetings is spending lots of time talking and not making specific actions to make something happen. Instead of minutes, it would be better in my opinion to put any relevant points into the relevant tool: Trello, Jira, Teams Tasks or whatever gets used. It's then easy to continue working with, if you are a bit wrong, you don't need another email with corrections, someone can just edit the task details or add more to it.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  If I meet with people over a jira ticket, the notes will go in a comment on that ticket, etc. this is not a contradiction. Also, I don't think that most meeting notes will or should be read in the far future, but I think they are invaluable to keep the bullshitting at bay. Probably also depends a lot on your work context. I work in a large corporation, so a lot of time is spent negotiating between departments and the culture isn't very much trust based which is totally different from my previous job in a very small company where essentially social control to be honest was a lot higher.
Aeolun 5y ago
I like it. I can’t be in all meetings all the time, but I can read all the meeting notes and follow up if I have to. Unfortunately, nobody sents any meeting notes, and they decide things that later get cited as ‘it was decided’, and I have to track back through history (and a lot of unwilling people) to figure out that ‘it’ was decided by two PM’s having a meeting at 12am with nobody relevant present. Who then tell me to be in meetings if I want to have any influence on their decisions.

flohofwoe 5y ago

I bet this is exactly why some people prefer direct communication that doesn't leave a trace ;)

gtirloni 5y ago
I agree. Every time something important starts getting discussed, people want to jump in a video call so every history is erased afterwards.
- lbriner 5y ago
  That is a cynical assumption. I think in most cases, people don't want eternal back-and-forth that can happen with emails when it can make sense to have a single conversation where the objections can quickly be noted/considered and the subtlety can be understood. Of course, in some cases, this has disadvantages but like most things, we should avoid making such absolute statements and allow intelligent people to work out whether written or spoken is a better idea for each topic.