3 ms·

> It seems to be more difficult to come to consensus in purely written communication I agree that some conflicts are much better handled via synchronous voice

by jhund 12y ago

> It seems to be more difficult to come to consensus in purely written communication I agree that some conflicts are much better handled via synchronous voice conversation. And I think that's acceptable, if not desirable. However, I make sure that after the call we write down some notes what decision we made, and why we decided the way we did. This makes sure that parties not present at the meeting (i.e. other developers, and our future selves) can pick up the context quickly and save us the pain of working through the decision process again. And then there is always the issue of dysfunctional team communications where the channel doesn't matter. In asynch conversations poor/obstinate communicators don't need everybody in the room to keep adding to a controversial conversation. So you just can't stop them.. And I just learned a new word: 'in·tran·si·gent': unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something. Thanks. > more awkward for decision-makers to assert themselves That has probably more to do with team culture than the communication channel used. I'd think that a capable and respected decision maker can assert themselves easily via written word.

mason55 12y ago
> However, I make sure that after the call we write down some notes what decision we made, and why we decided the way we did. This makes sure that parties not present at the meeting (i.e. other developers, and our future selves) can pick up the context quickly and save us the pain of working through the decision process again. In the same way that you should comment your code with the "why" and not just the "what" you also should comment your non-code decisions with the "why" and not just the "what". Otherwise someone in the future will try to overhaul a process without knowing about some of the previous pitfalls that were discovered.
sanderjd 12y ago
Thanks for your comment, and glad to be able to teach you a great word! I've honestly never run into a person who is persistently obstinate in in-person conversations, but I've met many (including myself) who sometimes are in asynchronous text. > That has probably more to do with team culture than the communication channel used. I'd think that a capable and respected decision maker can assert themselves easily via written word. I think the second sentence of that is true, but that my point stands that it is more difficult for them to do so. I believe that's because facial language plays a large role in interactions, and even more so in potentially tense ones, and it can be very difficult to strike the right tone textually. It is much easier to get across "I've heard your point of view, but I'm taking my prerogative to make a different decision this time" without hurting feelings in person than it is in text. It's very possible that it's just harder to run a remote-first team effectively and that's the trade-off you accept for the myriad benefits. That has been my perspective on it for awhile, but I'm always curious if there are ways to alleviate that cost.

by jhund 12y ago

mason55 12y ago

> However, I make sure that after the call we write down some notes what decision we made, and why we decided the way we did. This makes sure that parties not present at the meeting (i.e. other developers, and our future selves) can pick up the context quickly and save us the pain of working through the decision process again. In the same way that you should comment your code with the "why" and not just the "what" you also should comment your non-code decisions with the "why" and not just the "what". Otherwise someone in the future will try to overhaul a process without knowing about some of the previous pitfalls that were discovered.

sanderjd 12y ago

Thanks for your comment, and glad to be able to teach you a great word! I've honestly never run into a person who is persistently obstinate in in-person conversations, but I've met many (including myself) who sometimes are in asynchronous text. > That has probably more to do with team culture than the communication channel used. I'd think that a capable and respected decision maker can assert themselves easily via written word. I think the second sentence of that is true, but that my point stands that it is more difficult for them to do so. I believe that's because facial language plays a large role in interactions, and even more so in potentially tense ones, and it can be very difficult to strike the right tone textually. It is much easier to get across "I've heard your point of view, but I'm taking my prerogative to make a different decision this time" without hurting feelings in person than it is in text. It's very possible that it's just harder to run a remote-first team effectively and that's the trade-off you accept for the myriad benefits. That has been my perspective on it for awhile, but I'm always curious if there are ways to alleviate that cost.