Preferred way to communicate with co-workers?
Displaying poll results.12869 total votes.
Preferred way to communicate with co-workers?
I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
Obligatory missing option (Score:5, Funny)
"By posting as AC on slashdot"
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft, who in their right mind would read slashdot at -1 ?!
Re: (Score:2)
ACs start at 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a high opinion of my co-workers' ability to avoid getting downmodded.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft, who in their right mind would read slashdot at -1 ?!
I resemble that remark.
Oh... you said right mind.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's been some good posts on systemd I've found that were -1. Twice I learned about a bug and a workaround from them. There's too many of the moderators that are systemd fanbois that try to silence complaints rather than addressing the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. That option is missing. The original is of course designed for Samsung Note owners, not Apple iPad owners.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Obligatory missing option (Score:1)
No, that is the preferred method of communicating with _customers_, not co-workers!
Re: (Score:2)
Other missing options:
Semaphore
Signal flags
Morse code (please specify physical media)
Smoke Signals
Carrier pigeon
Qbits
Steganography
Microdots
Signal flares
Obscure language (e.g. the Windtalkers)
Bugle call
Messages in bottles
Cairns
Petroglyphs
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
Talking (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That poll should have permitted more than one choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking means some of my coworkers will have to dial in at 9pm, some at 9am, etc. Because we're not all in the same time zone. I really hate having to do verbal communication with my coworkers.
Being in the same room works, if some of my coworkers don't mind having frequent 16 hour flights. But I certainly do everything I can to avoid flying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the time of my post, "talking/same room" is winning by a large margin. It should give a message to employers about this whole "global workforce" thing. People are more productive when they can work with people face to face instead of via time-delayed e-mails.
Re:Sarcasm (Score:4, Interesting)
I bet you really do.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some other way?
Varies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose a broadsword can lead to a civil situation of a sort:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29
Email lets you organize your thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Face-to-face meetings may be more efficient for people who are aural learners, but not everyone can send, receive, and retain information that way. Personal discussions also tend to drift off-topic, so they waste as much time as they save, and of course they're not an option if the participants aren't all physically in the same office.
So... it's email for me. I have time to organize my thoughts, catch and edit mistakes, and keep an electronic trail to refer back to later when I can't recall exactly what was said.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've found that the ones who always want a meeting or prefer phone calls also are terrible at keeping up with email. Sometimes it appears that they simply are trying to avoid leaving a paper trail and are always quick to shift blame onto others when mistakes are discovered down the line.
Re:Email lets you organize your thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
I've found that the ones who always want a meeting or prefer phone calls also are terrible at keeping up with email. Sometimes it appears that they simply are trying to avoid leaving a paper trail and are always quick to shift blame onto others when mistakes are discovered down the line.
Good observation! That has been my experience also.
I've learned the hard way that being agreeable with bosses and acting on their verbal directions can lead to a thousand troubles down the line. These days, if I receive a verbal direction I always respond with an email saying what I think was said. About 30% of the time we discover that that there had been a misunderstanding - with a significant amount of potential work involved.
This practice (of putting all verbal decisions in writing) also cuts down waffle, as my bosses and coworkers know that I am actually listening to them, and that it will all cost money (ie. the time of the follow up email).
Re: (Score:2)
And then both sides have a paper trail. For example, I was recently asked to basically give the same input to a requirements process that I did 4 months ago because the project had been placed on the back burner. Nothing wrong with that, we had more pressing matters to attend to but where was the documentation of what was done? I could find the meeting in my calendar, I know I spent hours detailing and explaining the requirements but what happened to the notes from that meeting?
Rather than start the finger-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not proceeding until you get the task in writing is very sensible - I do the same. I find that some bosses and coworkers get impatient and say "Let's just get on with the job" but I stick to my guns.
Keeping people accountable for what they ask is very important too, because you build up a list of tasks, with an email trail, and then ask "Which do you want next? Do you still want task X", rather than agreeing to everything and finding yourself working late because you feel responsible for what you've taken o
Re: (Score:2)
They're not terrible at keeping up with e-mail, they just want you to think they are, because they are aware of their own incompetence and are smart enough to not want to leave trails of written crumbs which would lead to their incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Email lets you organize your thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
With practice, one can keep face-to-face meetings on-track, mitigating the time-wasting factor, while still retaining the benefits of body-language and subtle queues to meaning lost in text-only or audio-only communication. That does not, of course, address that some people need text information to learn, but that too can be mitigated with an email summary of arguments and conclusions.
Organized, well-run, face-to-face meetings provide far more information than other forms of communication. Summarizing notes provide an additional mode of communication and reference material for the future, enhancing the whole process.
Good meeting organizers are worth their weight in gold and generally undervalued by many corporations below the highest echelons of management. Executives generally have their trusted assistants who have superb meeting-running skills but middle-management and down tries to wing it, often with poor results. In those cases, you might be right, that emails are best but the poll was "preferred" way and "talking in the same room with them" did not specify the quality of the conversation, only the mode so I must compare a well-run meeting with a well-worded email, not a well-worded email compared to a poorly-run meeting.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most reasonable comparison is a typical meeting and a typical email exchange. Maybe a great meeting is better than great email, but we don't always have access to either, and the best judgment should be based on the quality we usually encounter in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
With practice one can write clearly enough to mitigate the "benefits of body-language and subtle queues to meaning." It works both ways and with email at least you've got a better record than memory. While I generally prefer email, a conversation is typically more efficient when you're trying to converge on some point of agreement.
Meetings are most effective when you can review written content in advance such that
Re: (Score:2)
With practice one can write clearly enough to mitigate the "benefits of body-language and subtle queues to meaning."
I'm not so sure that's true. We're still discovering ways in which we receive information from others non-verbally.
Sometimes an e-mail is the right choice. Sometimes a meeting is the right choice. Sometimes both are the right choice. All else being equal (competence, availability) the face-to-face communication is always preferred in my book.
If my co-worker is a terrible person to talk to, I'll prefer an e-mail (all else not equal). If my co-worker runs terrible meetings, I'll prefer an e-mail. If my cowork
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not absolutely terrible for status updates in all cases. I would much rather be fired in-person than over e-mail, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
In good meetings you can achieve this as well. However, it needs some discipline. Even though writing can help to sort your thoughts. Therefore, you do it in preparation of meetings. And in work meetings you can improve your understanding of a subject by discussing it. We utilize therefore presentations, white boards and sometimes the documentation (via data projector).
Meetings where people attend who are not prepared are often a waste of time.
efficient discussion (Score:3)
your reasoning all makes sense
when people choose face-to-face, most (if they are like me) are thinking from a different criteria...**efficient discussion that gets things accomplished**
email discussions can be good for efficient discussion compared to in person when available, but so much information is lost it often causes more misunderstanding than decisiveness
Re: (Score:2)
You're really underestimating the social part of face-to-face meetings.
Those moments discussing other things, laughing about irrelevant jokes, etc are not lost time. These moments are valuable as well, they help people get along with one another which in turn helps the whole process. It helps defuse arguments, it helps people to be nice to one another and to cooperate. People are, by nature, social creatures. You may figure you're an exception, it may indeed be true that not everyone can exchange informatio
Chat messages - quick, archiveable, searchable (Score:3)
Text chat is great -- you can go back later and re-read the conversation and confirm what you agreed on. Face to face is great -- if you follow up with an E-Mail or a ticket update; but you have to remember to do that.
For example, think about the last face to face meeting you had. What notes do you have from that meeting? How many issues were resolved? And how long was the meeting. Compare that to a couple of quick chat message exchanges.
Re: Chat messages - quick, archiveable, searchable (Score:2)
"For example, think about the last face to face meeting you had. What notes do you have from that meeting?"
About 15 lines in a text doc.
"How many issues were resolved?"
One.
"And how long was the meeting."
20 minutes
"Compare that to a couple of quick chat message exchanges."
The productive stuff ( if any ) via chat is too deeply buried in YouTube links and cat photos.
I think the face to face meeting wins.
If it's not documented, it didn't happen. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Writing and sending summarizing notes after a face-to-face conversation is very important. That's not all there is to communication, though, and having a face-to-face conversation which carries with it body language and other queues is still a proffered method for me.
Re: (Score:2)
In my workplace there are so many audit considerations that e-mail and/or instant messaging is used in the vast majority of situations despite being much slower and less efficient than simply talking. (My immediate team are all within 8 metres of my desk.)
Difference between preferred and achievable (Score:2)
I much prefer chatting face to face, but in a distributed environment that is often not possible - so what I will actually achieve is phone or email. Having said that: a written form (eg email) can be better at communicating decisions that are complex and need to be remembered.
Text chat most of the time... (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I work in an administrative department and am not a programmer or IT support employee. I just happen to be the dept's "power user", so I know how to fix 99% of problems which is a boon to our IT group who sits in an office 1.5 miles away as the crow flies.
My response, however, has nothing to do with tech support. It has everything to do with people not trimming down what they have to say to a 5-10 minute discussion sans digressions. Some people can do that just fine. Others just need to go on an
EMail provides a paper trail (Score:2)
Not only does email provide a paper trail of the discussion, it doesn't require that someone drop everything they're doing right now just to answer a couple of questions.
I HATE messaging systems, phone calls, and personal conversations for just that reason. I used to have one guy at my last job who constantly came to ask me questions instead of using Google or reading the documentation I'd already sent him. Laziest bugger I've ever had the misfortune of working with... and a smarmy arse-kisser to boot,
Re: (Score:2)
Note: It was my arse he was kissing with constant praise of my skills and knowledge. You don't need to suck up to get me to help you.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like the best way to communicate with you is to simply ignore.
Most important missing option (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on the topic of conversation! (Score:2)
If i just want to chat with a coworker, then I perfer to be in the same room with them or at least over the phone.
Is my coworker someplace far away overseeing a project? Then I might need to do the video call.
If I need to talk to a coworker about a specific project, then I might perfer an email so that there is a history of the topics discussed for accountability.
It all really comes down to the circumstances regarding the need for the conversation in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:2)
Even if I had paper, I'm not sure what I would write on it. (I assume you write on the stuff)
(Electronic) Paper Trail (Score:2)
What's a co-worker? (Score:2)
Email was my favorite. Especially
Subject: Can't send email
Body: I've been trying to send an email all morning and it won't go through.
Clearly, the best way to notify me that email isn't working is to send me an email about it. Spoiler alert: Email was always working fine in these cases. It's almost like the domains .vom .cim and .con don't exist. If only there were some sort of error report given to the sender explaining that.
When I was employed... (Score:2)
... online communications (IM, e-mails, chats, etc.) since I have speech and hearing impediments.
aim is key (Score:1)
Yes (Score:1)
My preferred means of communication depends on the specifics (where I am, where they are, how many people involved, time of day, what if anything we're doing in addition, what exactly we're talking about, who I'm talking to).
Same Room... (Score:1)
Differing scenarios (Score:1)
Face to face has its advantages (Score:4, Insightful)
Much of my job involves developing web-based systems for our own internal use. The ideas generally come from co-workers, but generally speaking what they ask for is not actually what they really want. It's much more efficient to meet directly with them so I can steer/prod the conversation in the right direction.
Also, face to face discussions get me away from my computer screen for a few minutes, which is a big plus in its own right. It can be difficult to convince myself to go for a 20 minute walk outside, because there's always lots of work waiting for my attention. But heading downstairs to ask a quick question or even just check my mail is an easy sell (to myself) - I'll do that multiple times a day.
Spelling Error (Score:1)
The following statement is incorrect:
"I prefer not to communicate with my co-workers."
It should read:
"I prefer not to communicate with my cow-orkers."
I like to use encrypted personal adds (Score:1)
Face to Face, written may often offend (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There are ways to express tone in written communications that are as effective as audible or postural tone, but they take practice. When I was a junior specialist, during a performance review, my manager said that I can come off as gruff or standoffish in my emails. I took the criticism to heart, the issue was resolved within a year. Now (10 years and 4 managers later) my annual performance review regularly includes a comment that my written communication skills are one of the biggest assets to the team.
I
Reviews (Score:2)
I prefer to communicate with them as little as possible. Preferably only when I give them their yearly performance review.
For the humor impaired that was humor.
Post-It (Score:2)
Passive-aggressive Post-It notes.
Whichever way our patronizing manager may instruct (Score:1)
Small manager of the day invariably has something to say about this
Telepathy (Score:2)
Radios (Score:2)
When not next to each other. All communications are done with radios.
IRC works great (Score:2)
Internal IRC, external/Freenode for upstream work.
Right tool for the job (Score:1)
Others have made similar comments such as "Depends"... I think "right tool for the job" says it best, and normally a complex job requires multiple tools.
My MO is usually:
1. Email to get the subject started, identify objectives.
2. Verbal/in person to give everyone a chance to ask questions and weigh in, followed up with meeting notes/minutes to summarize decision made.
3. Chat/IM for quick questions or coordinating a few people with order dependent tasks.
4. Direct phone call to handle complex questions.
5. Em
Re: (Score:1)
Get off the phone (Score:2)
Ob. Missing option (Score:2)
Morse Code. It takes a bit longer, but I feel the intimacy it generates is well worth the experience.
Re: (Score:2)
dahdahdididit didididahdah
dit dit
Re: (Score:1)
Morse Code. It takes a bit longer, but I feel the intimacy it generates is well worth the experience.
Dude. I told you to stop turning your flashlight on and off, it's not funny.
Each method has its use (Score:2)
It depends on the situation....
When I have an issue to discuss, I prefer to start off with email. Email allows me to give a more detailed description of the problem than other methods, and being assymetrical gives time for the other side to review and consider the issue carefully before responding.
I then like to follow that up with a phone call and/or instant messaging to ensure the other side received my message, and understands the issue. Communication at this stage is to ensure the other person is enga
Missing option: Defriending them on FB at Work (Score:1)
Solves a lot of problems, then you don't see all those annoying pics of their cats and dogs (hint: you're not a pet parent, you just have a pet).
Ob. Missing Option: Flag semaphore (Score:2)
Works particularly well with your cubicle neighbors! The gentle whooshing of flags is also calming and promotes team building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
It depends, chat, phone, sometimes both. (Score:2)
I can multitask multiple chats, but I can only focus on one phone conversation at a time. If multiple people are involved on a problem then a bridge is used.
Sometimes I will use chat while on the phone to type out the commands they need to use or to communicate a list of servers. I can also share a monitor screen while talking on the phone.
If the problem is non-trivial, then chat by itself is a pain. I can talk and listen while looking at servers, but if I had to communicate via chat only, it would be a con
depends what needs to be communicated (Score:2)
IM is great for quick questions, and it's not uncommon that a conversation that started as an IM will transition to an in-person discussion. E-mail is useful when you need a little more formality than IM, and can also be useful when instructions, or other details need to be shared.