zlacker

[return to "Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale"]
1. logica+ac[view] [source] 2022-01-29 18:16:34
>>tagoll+(OP)
Nuance is hard to convey in groups, but I believe that *a small part of the problem is a lack of design*. Many peoples' eyes glaze over when they see a wall of text in an email and they just skim rather than read. Some simple things to enhance communications can be the following.

* Use a few bullet points to put attention on the main points you want to convey.

* Without going overboard, use a tasteful amount of graphic design (bolding one key sentence or whatever).

* Break up a giant nuanced email into sections.

* If something is critical, make it visual: a picture, explainer video, or an infographic can be really useful for something key.

This is harder than it looks. A quote attributed to Mark Twain is "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead." It's a lot easier to go overboard than to distill what needs to be conveyed into the core elements.

◧◩
2. mcguir+2p[view] [source] 2022-01-29 19:34:43
>>logica+ac
How much do you want to bet most people will read your first bullet point, ignore the rest, and drop all the nuance?

Hell, I've learned not to ask more than one question in an email. The first one is the only one to get answered.

◧◩◪
3. jodrel+Sq[view] [source] 2022-01-29 19:49:06
>>mcguir+2p
This is so often said, and so bloody ridiculous a state of affairs for the information technology industry.

How hard would it be to have a shared todo list where the team can put every blocking question which needs answering, and everyone who needs to answer can either do that or delegate the decision or approve skipping it? (And I don't mean a sluggish Jira / Electron / Teams / helpdesk which needs 50,000 fields entered to raise a ticket, either).

I suspect it isn't done because nobody can usefully make all the decisions which other people want to push off onto other people, it would take inhuman amounts of time and attention. And that part of the reason "answering only the first question" happens is to drop most questions on the floor, with the idea that important ones will be raised again, as a way to filter out the huge number of unimportant questions. And as a way to deal with the fact that answering one question can change all subsequent questions - if the answer is "that's waiting on finance approval" then it might be about to have a budget cut, or be cancelled, or be delayed until a new financial year, and answering other questions is a waste of time.

Still, for when the other questions are needed, it should be something computer people, programmers, IT specialists, can have machines keep track of without absolutely awful interfaces - and maybe involving automated email and replies if needed, like forum posts and newsgroups have had for decades.

◧◩◪◨
4. lazide+xD[view] [source] 2022-01-29 21:12:15
>>jodrel+Sq
You can’t solve a lack of executive function/decision making capacity (which is what we’re referring to) by making more work/queuing up bullshit work. It will result in everyone just ignoring anything that smells like coming from such a system.

Since (almost) no one wants to admit they don’t have enough decision making capacity or can’t prioritize using it for whatever you’re asking (at least now a days it seems, since someone will post them saying they don’t care on social media and they’ll get fired), you will often see defacto rate limiting or pushback in other ways.

Common ways you’ll see in real life:

- only responding to the one item they want to respond to.

- ever increasing delays in responses or ‘missed emails’ (when you try again they’ll respond)

- half responses which don’t actually address the problem or answer your question (but are easy to generate).

- redirection to another - hard to reach - authority even if not appropriate (as they aren’t spending the time to figure out what your actual question is)

- straw manning your question/request as something else they already have an answer to and then answering that.

- adding your question/request to a backlog they aren’t responsible for and then ignoring it forever since it’s now ‘on the list’

- making up increasingly more complicated paperwork/procedure hoops with increasingly less pleasant user experiences

And many more. For non-decision making backlogs/overloads, there are also the

- ‘decades long queue’ method of shedding load like the old eastern bloc (and some healthcare systems)

- ‘you need a permit’ (but there is no actual perform form)

-‘we only work during (impossible hours here)’ etc.

It all boils down to they can’t care enough to get you want you want, so you either have to make them care (which will be met with generally well earned hostility), or find a way to get them to care (which may be impossible). In many countries, getting someone to care requires a bribe.

[go to top]