5 ms·

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the power dynamics of interruption. It is well known in psychology that interrupting anothers speech is a way to exert

by rapjr9 4y ago

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the power dynamics of interruption. It is well known in psychology that interrupting anothers speech is a way to exert power. The boss can interrupt anyone, no one interrupts the boss. It's one of several types of interruption: https://www.psychmechanics.com/psychology-of-interrupting/ https://www.psychmechanics.com/psychology-of-interrupting/ Interrupting someone can say "I am more important than you". This can also cause failures to communicate since the boss can change the subject and the interrupted speaker may never get to finish their thought. I've seen projects fail because a boss intentionally interrupted people who were trending in a direction they did not want to go, squashing anyone who was pointing out a major flaw in the bosses plans, which resulted in building things in a bad way and then having the flaw manifest and cause the project to fail. There are other types of interruption though that can be more supportive or more like parallel conversations. The efficiency of those often depends on the quality of the participants memory and ability to follow multiple threads simultaneously.

c0mptonFP 4y ago
Without interruptions, I would not be able to finish meetings on time. EVER. Information exchange is always the bottleneck in larger organizations, so efficiency of meetings is really important. I will interrupt someone if I understood their point, and we have different, more pressing items on the agenda. It's not a power play, not psychological warfare or bullying. I just want to get shit done on time.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  Companies with a waiting culture get things done on time. You might perceive interrupting as being more efficient but interrupting has its own set of inefficiencies.
  - c0mptonFP 4y ago
    Ok, next time an engineer on my team can't stop himself from talking about his SIMD lock-free distributed queue, I'll just keep listening. Maybe I get to sleep in the office too.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      In a waiting culture people almost never talk at length like that. They are eager to listen to other ideas. In fact, meetings are usually shorter. It's also less stressful. And I almost never hear the kind of skeptical sarcasm you're using here. Both of which are nice.
      - kansface 4y ago
        Both modes are subject to failures. Waiting is subject to live locks and interrupting is subject to thrashing. The socially maladroit or power tripper will misuse or abuse either system.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        Yes, of course there is no silver bullet. The point is that the parent comment thinks only an interupting culture can work which anyone who has worked in a functional waiting culture knows is false. There are pros and cons to both approaches. My personal experience has been that waiting cultures are more efficient at communication and get more work done. It would be interesting to see what actual instead of anecdotal data would show.
        c0mptonFP 4y ago
        Could you tell me more about your experiences with effective waiting culture? I'm having a hard time believing that a e.g. a high-level manager/exec with 20 meetings per day, and a 60 hour work week is able to be on time with a purely waiting approach. There are so many people that you need to align with this culture. If it worked for you, wherever you are, I respect that a lot.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        The detail it deserves doesn't fit in an HN comment. But I'll drop some observations here. You really need to experience it to get it though. Body language and so many other nuances all come into play in any communication style. I'll suggest that it's the interruption culture itself that is motivating the tendency for monologues. When an executive regularly says "John please let Mary finish, I wanted to hear the rest of her thoughts" it sends at least two signals: 1. The obvious that interrupting is not welcome here. 2. The less obvious but easy enough to figure out that listening is valued. The vast majority of folks are smart enough to figure out that a monologue is just as unwelcome as interruptions in a culture where listening is valued. At the the end of the day what everyone wants is a dialog. In a non-interupting culture folks tend to pass the baton far quicker which takes the place that interruptions used to serve. Once people understand that they will get uninterrupted time to speak, they relax and aren't so desperate to get everything out all at once before someone interrupts and shuts them down. Imagine a manager who tells you that she can give you 30m max, no interruptions. That's a lot of trust and responsibility they've put on you. You pretty quickly figure out how to make effective use of that time, and it's for sure not a monologue. And it's also manageable over a series of meetings. It's easy enough for a manager to start a meeting with "Kevin, please hold off your thoughts until the end of the meeting because we heard mostly from you last meeting". People catch on very quickly if it's coming from the top. Which it almost always has to.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  If only my fraternity brothers understood this during our meetings. So many hours wasted on off-topic ranting or the entire chapter discussing issues that should’ve been settled in committee (or one malcontent stalling the committee’s report)
njharman 4y ago
If workers can’t interrupt boss, then you’re in dysfunctional organization.
- phist_mcgee 4y ago
  I see that you're describing many blue collar jobs then as dysfunctional. The power imbalance in many companies that rely on year's tenure means that juniors can be seen but never heard.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  My thought exactly. Obviously there ARE dynamics there, but they're not nearly that solid.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Perhaps if it is taken to the extreme. But it may be pretty efficient to have teams where workers only interrupt the boss when there is a strong reason to interrupt, and sparingly, especially if the team is gathered. Especially if the boss came by the role as boss BECAUSE he/she is a good communicator. Similarly with parents and small children, teachers and pupils or other situations with large asymmetries in competencies.

by rapjr9 4y ago

c0mptonFP 4y ago

Without interruptions, I would not be able to finish meetings on time. EVER. Information exchange is always the bottleneck in larger organizations, so efficiency of meetings is really important. I will interrupt someone if I understood their point, and we have different, more pressing items on the agenda. It's not a power play, not psychological warfare or bullying. I just want to get shit done on time.

tchaffee 4y ago
Companies with a waiting culture get things done on time. You might perceive interrupting as being more efficient but interrupting has its own set of inefficiencies.
- c0mptonFP 4y ago
  Ok, next time an engineer on my team can't stop himself from talking about his SIMD lock-free distributed queue, I'll just keep listening. Maybe I get to sleep in the office too.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    In a waiting culture people almost never talk at length like that. They are eager to listen to other ideas. In fact, meetings are usually shorter. It's also less stressful. And I almost never hear the kind of skeptical sarcasm you're using here. Both of which are nice.
    - kansface 4y ago
      Both modes are subject to failures. Waiting is subject to live locks and interrupting is subject to thrashing. The socially maladroit or power tripper will misuse or abuse either system.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        Yes, of course there is no silver bullet. The point is that the parent comment thinks only an interupting culture can work which anyone who has worked in a functional waiting culture knows is false. There are pros and cons to both approaches. My personal experience has been that waiting cultures are more efficient at communication and get more work done. It would be interesting to see what actual instead of anecdotal data would show.
        c0mptonFP 4y ago
        Could you tell me more about your experiences with effective waiting culture? I'm having a hard time believing that a e.g. a high-level manager/exec with 20 meetings per day, and a 60 hour work week is able to be on time with a purely waiting approach. There are so many people that you need to align with this culture. If it worked for you, wherever you are, I respect that a lot.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        The detail it deserves doesn't fit in an HN comment. But I'll drop some observations here. You really need to experience it to get it though. Body language and so many other nuances all come into play in any communication style. I'll suggest that it's the interruption culture itself that is motivating the tendency for monologues. When an executive regularly says "John please let Mary finish, I wanted to hear the rest of her thoughts" it sends at least two signals: 1. The obvious that interrupting is not welcome here. 2. The less obvious but easy enough to figure out that listening is valued. The vast majority of folks are smart enough to figure out that a monologue is just as unwelcome as interruptions in a culture where listening is valued. At the the end of the day what everyone wants is a dialog. In a non-interupting culture folks tend to pass the baton far quicker which takes the place that interruptions used to serve. Once people understand that they will get uninterrupted time to speak, they relax and aren't so desperate to get everything out all at once before someone interrupts and shuts them down. Imagine a manager who tells you that she can give you 30m max, no interruptions. That's a lot of trust and responsibility they've put on you. You pretty quickly figure out how to make effective use of that time, and it's for sure not a monologue. And it's also manageable over a series of meetings. It's easy enough for a manager to start a meeting with "Kevin, please hold off your thoughts until the end of the meeting because we heard mostly from you last meeting". People catch on very quickly if it's coming from the top. Which it almost always has to.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
If only my fraternity brothers understood this during our meetings. So many hours wasted on off-topic ranting or the entire chapter discussing issues that should’ve been settled in committee (or one malcontent stalling the committee’s report)

njharman 4y ago

If workers can’t interrupt boss, then you’re in dysfunctional organization.

phist_mcgee 4y ago
I see that you're describing many blue collar jobs then as dysfunctional. The power imbalance in many companies that rely on year's tenure means that juniors can be seen but never heard.
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
My thought exactly. Obviously there ARE dynamics there, but they're not nearly that solid.
trashtester 4y ago
Perhaps if it is taken to the extreme. But it may be pretty efficient to have teams where workers only interrupt the boss when there is a strong reason to interrupt, and sparingly, especially if the team is gathered. Especially if the boss came by the role as boss BECAUSE he/she is a good communicator. Similarly with parents and small children, teachers and pupils or other situations with large asymmetries in competencies.