4 ms·

Generating a common understanding can be a really powerful way to avoid misunderstandings. Have you ever had a meeting at work where everyone seems to agree on

Generating a common understanding can be a really powerful way to avoid misunderstandings. Have you ever had a meeting at work where everyone seems to agree on some course of action, only for everyone to leave the meeting with slightly different ideas in their heads resulting in an uncoordinated mess later? Ensuring a common understanding prevents this problem. The simplest technique I've found for generating a common understanding is sharing / projecting my screen and then taking live meeting notes that everyone in the meeting can see. So when someone is talking they can immediately spot if I've misunderstood something and correct it. If they don't correct my notes the implication is that what I wrote down is an accurate reflection of what they meant. Because everyone else in the meeting sees the correction (or lack of correction) they too now share in this common understanding. It is now impossible for us to walk out of the meeting with different ideas in our heads, and also prevents people from later dishonestly claiming that they meant something different from what was written down in my live meeting notes.

maroonblazer 3y ago
At the risk of sounding like a shill for "Teams" - a product I generally struggle with - one great feature is the ability to capture notes in real time that everyone in the meeting can see. No screen sharing required. Goes a long way towards ensuring everyone's on the same page with whatever was discussed/outcomes agreed to.
- spangry 3y ago
  If that's a manual thing then it will work. Automatic transcription won't have the same effect. The trick to this live note taking is that I'm essentially allowing people to read my mind by externalising my thoughts where everyone can see them. The speaker, by correcting or not correcting my externalised thoughts, indicates to everyone whether or not my thoughts match their thoughts.
  - maroonblazer 3y ago
    Right. When I was at IBM they had a 3-day, in-person, course where you learned and practiced facilitation skills. It was a great experience and equipped me with a set of skills I've used and continue to hone to this day. One of those tools being that you capture/summarize the discussion in a public display that everyone can see. You check in with the group with something like "Does this accurately capture what was just discussed/decided?" Everyone has a chance to refine it to meet their understanding and/or we discover that we're not aligned, which engenders more discussion until we are.
- falserum 3y ago
  Problem is not technological. Words are just a bit ambiguous. “Estimate for X is 5 hours”. Does this estimate only source code change, or full release process with installation to production? Speech converted to text contains same ambiguities. People just like to assume that whole group have matching assumptions. (Which have pros and cons)
  - kqr 3y ago
    > “Estimate for X is 5 hours”. Does this estimate only source code change, or full release process with installation to production? Also is that 50 % chance done in 5 hours, or 90 % chance, or a virtual guarantee? Makes a huge difference to planning yet nobody specifies it.
    - edmundsauto 3y ago
      These are all questions that managers (in my org) are typically expected to ask. They aren't one-offs, but are critical information to share information between people.
    - taway1237 3y ago
      I wanted to say that this "obviously" means "5 hours median" i.e. 50%, but I just realised my managers and clients would almost always understand this as "I swear on everything I hold dear this will take 5 hours and not a single minute more" (which is why I avoid sharing my estimates publicly). Funny how it works. Great observation, thanks.
layer8 3y ago
That only works if you give enough time for everyone to check what you’re writing. I know the situation, but I frequently only partially read what the note-taker is writing because discussions are going on in parallel. Another issue is bad eyesight when the projection setup isn’t ideal.

maroonblazer 3y ago

At the risk of sounding like a shill for "Teams" - a product I generally struggle with - one great feature is the ability to capture notes in real time that everyone in the meeting can see. No screen sharing required. Goes a long way towards ensuring everyone's on the same page with whatever was discussed/outcomes agreed to.

spangry 3y ago
If that's a manual thing then it will work. Automatic transcription won't have the same effect. The trick to this live note taking is that I'm essentially allowing people to read my mind by externalising my thoughts where everyone can see them. The speaker, by correcting or not correcting my externalised thoughts, indicates to everyone whether or not my thoughts match their thoughts.
- maroonblazer 3y ago
  Right. When I was at IBM they had a 3-day, in-person, course where you learned and practiced facilitation skills. It was a great experience and equipped me with a set of skills I've used and continue to hone to this day. One of those tools being that you capture/summarize the discussion in a public display that everyone can see. You check in with the group with something like "Does this accurately capture what was just discussed/decided?" Everyone has a chance to refine it to meet their understanding and/or we discover that we're not aligned, which engenders more discussion until we are.
falserum 3y ago
Problem is not technological. Words are just a bit ambiguous. “Estimate for X is 5 hours”. Does this estimate only source code change, or full release process with installation to production? Speech converted to text contains same ambiguities. People just like to assume that whole group have matching assumptions. (Which have pros and cons)
- kqr 3y ago
  > “Estimate for X is 5 hours”. Does this estimate only source code change, or full release process with installation to production? Also is that 50 % chance done in 5 hours, or 90 % chance, or a virtual guarantee? Makes a huge difference to planning yet nobody specifies it.
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    These are all questions that managers (in my org) are typically expected to ask. They aren't one-offs, but are critical information to share information between people.
  - taway1237 3y ago
    I wanted to say that this "obviously" means "5 hours median" i.e. 50%, but I just realised my managers and clients would almost always understand this as "I swear on everything I hold dear this will take 5 hours and not a single minute more" (which is why I avoid sharing my estimates publicly). Funny how it works. Great observation, thanks.

layer8 3y ago

That only works if you give enough time for everyone to check what you’re writing. I know the situation, but I frequently only partially read what the note-taker is writing because discussions are going on in parallel. Another issue is bad eyesight when the projection setup isn’t ideal.