8 ms·

> ... There is a more intriguing possibility, however. Work that is largely done remotely may be more efficient compared with an office-first model. I don't th

• silksowed 5y ago
  i find it easier to speak up in front of people way above my pay grade. the digital barrier erases all of what i would call the "scary boss" intimidation. allows me to ask more pointed questions no matter who is in the teams "room"
• spaceywilly 5y ago
  I think the best way is a combination of both. Async written message first to establish context, followed by in person communication—if necessary—to clear up any confusion. For example, our team used to have a 15 minute standup meeting every day, where we would go around and give our status updates. Many people complained that most of the time, the information being shared wasn’t relevant to them. We replaced it with a daily Slack thread where people could share their updates. Then, in the 15-minute meeting people could ask any questions they had or bring up anything they wanted to discuss more. This resulted in the daily standup meetings becoming a much more effective use of everyone’s time.
• koonsolo 5y ago
  If the other people in the room are also knowledgeable, you will come to an even better conclusion much faster face-to-face. In my experience, having "group reasoning" is faster and with better results.
  • goodpoint 5y ago
    > In my experience, having "group reasoning" is faster and with better results. Speed is not a proxy for decision quality. It's almost always the opposite. Very few technical topics require quick forth and back. Writing is more effective communication.
  • bigwavedave 5y ago
    > If the other people in the room are also knowledgeable, you will come to an even better conclusion much faster face-to-face. > In my experience, having "group reasoning" is faster and with better results. Why is face-to-face required for "group reasoning"?
    • koonsolo 5y ago
      You want high and fast bandwidth between the different brains. Me writing something in my cocoon for 15 minutes, then someone reading that and replying what is wrong with that is not very efficient. Just throwing some thoughts in the open air and others responding to that, crystallizes much faster. Same with giving feedback about user interfaces. It's so much easier to just walk to someone's desk and point at what you think should be changed. You can interact instantly. That is not to say that I don't see the value in written communication, documentation and having a log of what happened. It's very much a trade-off.
      • MrPatan 5y ago
        Calls are even lower latency, you skip the "walk to their desk" bit.
      • saimiam 5y ago
        What crystallizes may have been reached quickly but there is no guarantee it is the best possible choice given all the known and unknown unknowns that the experts may have not considered. Then there is also the hierarchy of expert advice to consider where a room of experts some who are more senior (or louder or more convinced about their rightness) might push you towards a worse outcome than a well thought through option. I feel a decision taken “live” with the help of experts needs to be viewed with more skepticism than less.
• oivey 5y ago
  On the other hand, for complex topics I’ve found that a face-to-face conversation is often much more effective because it allows both parties to have a rapid back and forth to resolve misunderstandings or gaps in the conversation. Asynchronous communication is poor at this.
  • quietbritishjim 5y ago
    Absolutely agreed. I've often found myself seeing that someone has misunderstood something, and wanting to write "if the source of your misunderstanding is (a) then [several paragraphs] whereas if it's (b) then [several different paragraphs]. Asking them whether it's (a) or (b) by email adds another cycle and often isn't understood anyway. It's just far more effective to communicate synchronously (face to face or by phone).
  • rimliu 5y ago
    Yes, it is like flying a toy drone in your room vs. flying a drone on the Mars. In the first case if you see it heading into the wall you can correct it immediately. On the Mars it may be already too late when you find out it is heading into some boulder.
  • tchalla 5y ago
    > for complex topics I’ve found that a face-to-face conversation is often much more effective because it allows both parties to have a rapid back and forth to resolve misunderstandings or gaps in the conversation. Face-to-Face conversation can also happen remote synchronous.
    • fps_doug 5y ago
      To me, it sucks. (Video) calls are exhausting and less flexible, and nothing beats having a huge, real whiteboard and three people taking turns refining a diagram or flowchart while discussing it.
      • ghaff 5y ago
        It can be. It's also very expensive when people are scattered across multiple states and even multiple countries. Basically no meeting with more than 2 or 3 people I'd likely be in would involve people only in one of my nearby offices. In addition, while whiteboards can still be nice for certain things, over the past few years I've also come to realize that collaborative docs (e.g. Google Docs) are actually as good or better for a lot of purposes.
• quadrifoliate 5y ago
  One reason I have found real-time communication ineffective is that it favors the narcissists and egoists in the conversation who are comfortable talking over everyone else. Guess what happens in this situation – Bob spends 40 minutes talking out of the hour's meeting about how his way is right, interrupts everyone, and by the end of the hour meeting the boss is saying “Well, why don't we do a proof of concept with Bob's suggestion” simply because everyone is bored and hungry. Meanwhile, Jane had a novel and imaginative idea that went completely ignored because Bob kept cutting her off saying why it wouldn't work early on when she was trying to explain the concept. Oh, and did I say that this interruption and talking for a long time seems to get ten time worse over video calls for some reason – perhaps because Bob finds it easier to pontificate while in his pajamas compared to having to stand up and talk in front of his peers in the office. Yeah, I know the standard retort for this is "your meeting must have an agenda" et cetera. Guess what, look at the last 5 meetings on your calendar and tell me truthfully how many of them have a real agenda (mindlessly repeating the title as the description doesn't count). People don't want to do it, because, guess what, it adds an element of asynchronous communication when you have to think of the agenda ahead of time. So, I have found that just going the whole way and just having the entire communication asynchronously is often better at ensuring more equitable participation.
  • tristor 5y ago
    Assume good intent on the part of others. This is generally good advice, but especially true in the work place. I have been “Bob” some times, but it was not out of ego. Sometimes a meeting is called because there is a problem that doesn’t fall neatly into existing organizational buckets and the company is doing a scavenger hunt to identify existing domain experts. If you’re that domain expert, your role in that meeting is to quickly establish that fact and work to bring everyone to a shared understanding of the issue, possible causes, and possible solutions. Also, sometimes meetings are not called for a conversation, they are called for an information broadcast that requires people’s undivided attention because alignment and understanding needs to be established before work can continue. I have been on both the receiving end of “Bob”, and stuck being “Bob”. But, to your point having a good agenda is crucial, partly to frame things ahead of time so meeting participants know if this is a broadcast, a conversation, or a scavenger hunt. For the latter, most importantly because maybe “Bob” knows that “Linda” is the foremost expert on X and should have been invited.
• dorkwood 5y ago
  The downside of this approach is that most people will not read what you wrote. Especially if it's more than, say, three sentences.
  • spaceywilly 5y ago
    I’d much rather skip reading a useless Slack message than be stuck in another useless meeting
  • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    As many as three? I've given up asking more than one question in support emails because only the first question ever gets answered.
• aozo 5y ago
  >For those topics, I love to communicate with some "written" form, such as in an email, posts etc. Because doing the "writing" part allow me to conduct some research and analyses on the topic (usually took 10 minutes), which will in turn increase the quality of my reply. That and to me at least almost more important is the ability to refer back to history. You have a little oral discussion with your co-workers about an issue, or maybe ask for some clarification on something etc. Then a few days later when you think you need that info again, it's gone. Having a discussion in Slack, Mattermost, email, etc allows me to always refer back and see what we've been talking about. Which can be vital especially in those situations where we're talking about complex issues with complex answers. The fact that I can a week later go back and see the same clarification again, is definitely helpful
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  I would like to reply in text, but i d rather call you, ruin your flow and bother you with insignificant details