6 ms·

> For the next five years I operated in “Slack culture”, the communication paradigm that I suspect is in use by many companies these days. Email inboxes were mo

> For the next five years I operated in “Slack culture”, the communication paradigm that I suspect is in use by many companies these days. Email inboxes were more or less reserved for broadcasts from exec and HR along with JIRA spam. Everything else happens on Slack. This is the real problem, IMO. Slack shouldn't be replacing e-mail or meetings or phone calls. It's great for impromptu discussions with a lot of back-and-forth, but once it becomes a serious conversation with multiple parties you need to escalate to a call or meeting or e-mail. Casual, asynchronous chat is great for low-importance conversations that aren't time sensitive. It's terrible for coordinating and making important decisions in a timely manner, though. Don't be afraid to schedule a synchronous communication session in whatever flavor you prefer. Once you start making Slack the center of communication, you stop making deliberate decisions about who is included in e-mails/meetings. Now everyone in the channel has to skim everything to make sure they're not missing out on anything important. Busybodies love it because they can be a fly on the wall for everything. Heads-down workers hate it because they have to choose between focusing on their work or checking into Slack all of the time. It optimizes for the wrong kind of engagement. Trying to enforce a lot of rules around threading is a band-aid, IMO. The real solution should be to create a culture where people aren't trying to force every interaction into Slack or avoid meetings at all costs. Excessive meetings are a problem, but going out of your way to avoid all meetings will waste more time than it frees up.

admax88qqq 5y ago
> but once it becomes a serious conversation with multiple parties you need to escalate to a call or meeting or e-mail. Why? Having multiple different communication buses seems like a problem as well. Possibly a worse one IMO
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  If you need a specific list of people engaged in a conversation, you can either: 1) Schedule something in a time slot that works for everyone. Everyone arrives prepared to focus on the conversation and reach a conclusion before returning to work. 2) Ping them in Slack or @channel and try to pry them away from whatever they're working on. Get a mix of half-attention and hurried responses and force your devs to choose whether to continue focusing on their work and risk missing out, or to drop everything and alt-tab over to Slack and try to catch up on the backlog as quick as possible. Using synchronous comms or e-mail for everything is a mistake, but trying to force everything into asynchronous commons or Slack is just as bad. Know when to use the right tool for each job. You can get away with a lot of Slack sins in small teams or companies, but try to scale Slack-only communication up to company scale and it's a nightmare. I worked at a company where I would accumulate upwards of 200 (not a typo) Slack notifications every single day because it became a battle ground of people competing for attention and trying to give drive-by input as they rushed on to the next Slack thread. Moving to e-mails forces people to put some minimal thought and prep into organizing their thoughts, which makes all the difference. > Having multiple different communication buses seems like a problem as well. Possibly a worse one IMO You have different types of communication. Why would you want to try to force them all into the lowest common denominator medium? Trying to force everything into Slack is a disaster. Slack is great for real-time, interactive communication. Information has a very short half-life in Slack, though. Once something requires a longer half-life than Slack supports or a more careful handling, you move it to a better medium.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    How does email not have the exact same issues? I agree that a meeting might be better though.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Because email is a snapshot in time. Slack on the other hand can get overwhelmed by noise and most people, myself included, don't go back very far when opening a channel. Emails, on the other, I make sure to read each thread.
      - spoils19 5y ago
        Right, because people definitely read each thread in emails and definitely don't read each message in a thread. It's incredibly easy to link to a specific point in time in Slack, where you can contextually read the discussion from there. Quoting email replies is not the same. > most people Based on what number of people in what context? To put it another way, I don't go back very far when opening an email. Slack, on the other hand, I make sure to read each message.
    - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
      > How does email not have the exact same issues? Chat and e-mail have entirely different dynamics. Most people use chat as rapid-fire communication. Most people write e-mail with at least some thought and structure before hitting send. Think sentences versus paragraphs. You also pick the audience from the start when you fill out the "To" field. With Slack, it can be hard to narrow the audience of a conversation unless you go to private messages (which will be lost to search) or go to threads and only ping the people who need to see it (which is what this article is proposing as their solution)
  - jader201 5y ago
    It depends, though. Meetings are expensive, and often a waste of a number of people's time. And sometimes figuring out _who_ should be there is a problem (and cause also burn time). Having broader discussions in a Slack thread has the benefits of: a) it fosters transparency -- others are able to see the discussion, and chime in or move on b) it's asynchronous -- others can chime in when they're able to, vs. having to drop what they're doing and join a meeting c) it's self-documenting -- others that may not have been able to attend the meeting, or may just want to know the context/takeaways can just review the discussion Of course, it has the downside of blocking a decision, where a meeting can help arrive at a decision more quickly. But -- at least, in our experience -- most decisions aren't urgent, and the turnaround time a Slack thread yields is typically sufficient. When it's not, we'll jump on a call. Email, to me, is the worst of both worlds. You mention below that it forces more thought, and I agree with that as an upside. But typically (again, in our experience), people are pretty put together pretty well-thought-out discussions together, so it's not really an issue for us. We _never_ use email, and I'm perfectly happy with that.
- xfitm3 5y ago
  The real problem is Slack's engagement tactics. Reducing time on Slack benefits everyone, except Slack itself.
xwdv 5y ago
> Slack shouldn't be replacing e-mail or meetings or phone calls. Absolutely wrong. We use Slack messaging and huddles to replace these things and are a more efficient workplace because of it. Really this is the point of Slack. I have no desire to go back to the throat clearing and careful writing that comes with composing emails or wasting time in unfocused real-time meetings and phone calls that could have just been handled through a few async messages on slack. If a co-worker sent me an email (which no one ever really does) I would ignore it until they message me on Slack about it. On top of that, Slack apps really decrease cognitive load by putting useful information into conversations or providing good prompts to start discussions from webhook notifications.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> Don't be afraid to schedule a synchronous communication session in whatever flavor you prefer. That is its own separate problem. Constant distraction in Slack, followed closely by Zoom call hell because you didn't respond fast enough in Slack and wouldn't it just be faster if we all got on a call? If we're going to leverage the power of remote work, part of that is re-learning how to do effective asynchronous communication and not succumbing to interruptions just because it's so easy to inflict them.
nescioquid 5y ago
> Casual, asynchronous chat is great ... I'm in the lead-weight-dragging tail (working in a bank using Teams, but dealt with this at the last job in Slack as well). The major hassle seems to be getting people to understand this is asynchronous communication (perpetrators are both developers and executives) and this problem seems to stand before the rest of the more sophisticated complaints evinced here can be even addressed. A: Hello B. [... typing/waiting animation] B: Hi. A: Good afternoon. B: All clear for transmission, A. What's going on? [... now B is derailed, waiting several minutes for A to compose his thoughts and type and edit them] For all the pseudo UX voodoo we go through, can we not do something to give a hint that this is not a fucking phone conversation or something that requires a Q code? Or am I exiled to some benighted colony? Why is this not the first-order problem to be dealt with?
- Spoom 5y ago
  We have an unofficial policy in my company that all pertinent information should be in the first message specifically to avoid the scenario you mention. Highly recommended.
  - ungamed 5y ago
    The business I work for has the same, it is branded "Naked pings suck".
    - nescioquid 5y ago
      That's grand and I'm envious. I guess what I'm suggesting is that if UX were grounded in HCI in any way, this would be the _primary_ problem to be addressed and is the issue which thereby outs UX as an over-priced modern-day hardware store color palette for the blind (primarily preoccupied only with forestalling law-suites). I guess my question, really, is what affordance could be surfaced to suggest this communication medium is asynchronous and discourage this imposing behavior? Or, while the more socialized effete users know this is a problem and are properly socialized and are more concerned with problems on the frontier, I'm suggesting that there are major problems in the hinterland that have simply been ignored.
philip1209 5y ago
This behavior is caused by the presence indicator. People subsconsiously are afraid that closing Slack will signal to their boss (and team) that they're not working. However, the result is that they spend their days slacking - not working. Presence indicators are a dark pattern.
- ungamed 5y ago
  I think the name indicates its intentions quite clearly. Make employees slack.
- sjaak 5y ago
  > they spend their days slacking what's in a name?
- tvaughan 5y ago
  With Twist, https://twist.com/ https://twist.com/, everything is a thread and no presence indicators

admax88qqq 5y ago

> but once it becomes a serious conversation with multiple parties you need to escalate to a call or meeting or e-mail. Why? Having multiple different communication buses seems like a problem as well. Possibly a worse one IMO

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
If you need a specific list of people engaged in a conversation, you can either: 1) Schedule something in a time slot that works for everyone. Everyone arrives prepared to focus on the conversation and reach a conclusion before returning to work. 2) Ping them in Slack or @channel and try to pry them away from whatever they're working on. Get a mix of half-attention and hurried responses and force your devs to choose whether to continue focusing on their work and risk missing out, or to drop everything and alt-tab over to Slack and try to catch up on the backlog as quick as possible. Using synchronous comms or e-mail for everything is a mistake, but trying to force everything into asynchronous commons or Slack is just as bad. Know when to use the right tool for each job. You can get away with a lot of Slack sins in small teams or companies, but try to scale Slack-only communication up to company scale and it's a nightmare. I worked at a company where I would accumulate upwards of 200 (not a typo) Slack notifications every single day because it became a battle ground of people competing for attention and trying to give drive-by input as they rushed on to the next Slack thread. Moving to e-mails forces people to put some minimal thought and prep into organizing their thoughts, which makes all the difference. > Having multiple different communication buses seems like a problem as well. Possibly a worse one IMO You have different types of communication. Why would you want to try to force them all into the lowest common denominator medium? Trying to force everything into Slack is a disaster. Slack is great for real-time, interactive communication. Information has a very short half-life in Slack, though. Once something requires a longer half-life than Slack supports or a more careful handling, you move it to a better medium.
- thebean11 5y ago
  How does email not have the exact same issues? I agree that a meeting might be better though.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Because email is a snapshot in time. Slack on the other hand can get overwhelmed by noise and most people, myself included, don't go back very far when opening a channel. Emails, on the other, I make sure to read each thread.
    - spoils19 5y ago
      Right, because people definitely read each thread in emails and definitely don't read each message in a thread. It's incredibly easy to link to a specific point in time in Slack, where you can contextually read the discussion from there. Quoting email replies is not the same. > most people Based on what number of people in what context? To put it another way, I don't go back very far when opening an email. Slack, on the other hand, I make sure to read each message.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > How does email not have the exact same issues? Chat and e-mail have entirely different dynamics. Most people use chat as rapid-fire communication. Most people write e-mail with at least some thought and structure before hitting send. Think sentences versus paragraphs. You also pick the audience from the start when you fill out the "To" field. With Slack, it can be hard to narrow the audience of a conversation unless you go to private messages (which will be lost to search) or go to threads and only ping the people who need to see it (which is what this article is proposing as their solution)
- jader201 5y ago
  It depends, though. Meetings are expensive, and often a waste of a number of people's time. And sometimes figuring out _who_ should be there is a problem (and cause also burn time). Having broader discussions in a Slack thread has the benefits of: a) it fosters transparency -- others are able to see the discussion, and chime in or move on b) it's asynchronous -- others can chime in when they're able to, vs. having to drop what they're doing and join a meeting c) it's self-documenting -- others that may not have been able to attend the meeting, or may just want to know the context/takeaways can just review the discussion Of course, it has the downside of blocking a decision, where a meeting can help arrive at a decision more quickly. But -- at least, in our experience -- most decisions aren't urgent, and the turnaround time a Slack thread yields is typically sufficient. When it's not, we'll jump on a call. Email, to me, is the worst of both worlds. You mention below that it forces more thought, and I agree with that as an upside. But typically (again, in our experience), people are pretty put together pretty well-thought-out discussions together, so it's not really an issue for us. We _never_ use email, and I'm perfectly happy with that.
xfitm3 5y ago
The real problem is Slack's engagement tactics. Reducing time on Slack benefits everyone, except Slack itself.

xwdv 5y ago

> Slack shouldn't be replacing e-mail or meetings or phone calls. Absolutely wrong. We use Slack messaging and huddles to replace these things and are a more efficient workplace because of it. Really this is the point of Slack. I have no desire to go back to the throat clearing and careful writing that comes with composing emails or wasting time in unfocused real-time meetings and phone calls that could have just been handled through a few async messages on slack. If a co-worker sent me an email (which no one ever really does) I would ignore it until they message me on Slack about it. On top of that, Slack apps really decrease cognitive load by putting useful information into conversations or providing good prompts to start discussions from webhook notifications.

rootusrootus 5y ago

> Don't be afraid to schedule a synchronous communication session in whatever flavor you prefer. That is its own separate problem. Constant distraction in Slack, followed closely by Zoom call hell because you didn't respond fast enough in Slack and wouldn't it just be faster if we all got on a call? If we're going to leverage the power of remote work, part of that is re-learning how to do effective asynchronous communication and not succumbing to interruptions just because it's so easy to inflict them.

nescioquid 5y ago

> Casual, asynchronous chat is great ... I'm in the lead-weight-dragging tail (working in a bank using Teams, but dealt with this at the last job in Slack as well). The major hassle seems to be getting people to understand this is asynchronous communication (perpetrators are both developers and executives) and this problem seems to stand before the rest of the more sophisticated complaints evinced here can be even addressed. A: Hello B. [... typing/waiting animation] B: Hi. A: Good afternoon. B: All clear for transmission, A. What's going on? [... now B is derailed, waiting several minutes for A to compose his thoughts and type and edit them] For all the pseudo UX voodoo we go through, can we not do something to give a hint that this is not a fucking phone conversation or something that requires a Q code? Or am I exiled to some benighted colony? Why is this not the first-order problem to be dealt with?

Spoom 5y ago
We have an unofficial policy in my company that all pertinent information should be in the first message specifically to avoid the scenario you mention. Highly recommended.
- ungamed 5y ago
  The business I work for has the same, it is branded "Naked pings suck".
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    That's grand and I'm envious. I guess what I'm suggesting is that if UX were grounded in HCI in any way, this would be the _primary_ problem to be addressed and is the issue which thereby outs UX as an over-priced modern-day hardware store color palette for the blind (primarily preoccupied only with forestalling law-suites). I guess my question, really, is what affordance could be surfaced to suggest this communication medium is asynchronous and discourage this imposing behavior? Or, while the more socialized effete users know this is a problem and are properly socialized and are more concerned with problems on the frontier, I'm suggesting that there are major problems in the hinterland that have simply been ignored.

philip1209 5y ago

This behavior is caused by the presence indicator. People subsconsiously are afraid that closing Slack will signal to their boss (and team) that they're not working. However, the result is that they spend their days slacking - not working. Presence indicators are a dark pattern.

ungamed 5y ago
I think the name indicates its intentions quite clearly. Make employees slack.
sjaak 5y ago
> they spend their days slacking what's in a name?
tvaughan 5y ago
With Twist, https://twist.com/ https://twist.com/, everything is a thread and no presence indicators