[dcatx]

Yes, it is important to write and I wish that many folks I've worked with in the past had been better writers (and readers). I am job searching right now after leaving a very, very meeting heavy culture and one of my top criteria is finding a company that values asynchronous discussion and written communication whenever possible.

I'm totally aligned with the author on the value of writing as a tool for thinking, learning, and exploring and I agree that there are blockers for some folks that make them less likely to stretch their writing muscles, especially in professional settings where the default is often "let's jump on a quick call".

Sadly, the article is poorly written. I don't expect professional-level editing on a personal blog, but I would hope for a higher standard when the piece is written by someone who is building and (presumably) charging money for a course on writing.

[muzani]

I believe this article is targeted at those who are not as comfortable with writing - those people who jump on a call for anything, and want to learn to use async communication more. It sounds like the author is starting to explore that territory. Whereas people like me used to hang around IRC while doing homework and write entire blog posts while half asleep in bed. We're not the ones who simply write while not told to. We have to tell ourselves to stop writing and listen/read more.

[crgwbr]

If you're looking for a job at a company that highly values writing, please send me your resume! cweber [at] thelabnyc [dot] com.

We're a digital agency based in NYC, looking to hire a Sr. level engineer either on-site or remote within the US. Over the past few years we've really gotten serious about technical writing, especially around requirements gathering/documentation. We now strive to treat documentation as just as important as code—meaning a feature's requirements get written and code-reviewed via merge request _before_ implementation work begins.

So, if you're looking for a place that asynchronous discussion and written communication, you'd fit right in.

[abathur]

The most-deflating response to a thoughtfully-written email that lays out a clear set of strategic choices is the immediate TL;DR of the business world: can we schedule a quick call to make sure we're all on the same page about this? What's a good time for you?

[121789]

I think you shouldn't be too deflated about this. For many decisions, a sync session is necessary (whether it's a group review or a team call). The biggest benefit of a good writing culture is to turn five open-ended time-consuming group calls into a couple of well-written emails, and a final decision call with a clear agenda.

[abathur]

A decisive decision-session is great. An I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so.

[ReactiveJelly]

I fantasize of just printing out my emails and reading them in a monotone

[dcatx]

So tiring to get those responses. My old company was forced to go remote when the pandemic hit and the anxiety that the founder had about remote resulted in meetings about meetings to prepare everyone for the meetings.

Everyone has different learning styles, some conversations are definitely better in real-time and in-person but the default behavior being refusing to read an email longer than 3 sentences is rough.

[notahacker]

The default behaviour being an assumption that anybody who has any questions, thinks a back and forth would be beneficial or possibly even wants to arrive at a decision democratically is a dullard who didn't even bother to absorb the perfectly clear, indisputable and comprehensive final word on the matter that is their original email is pretty rough too though.

I guess sometimes people who [rightly or wrongly] think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of their time find it easier to suggest the other person is the one who's not putting the effort into it...

[dcatx]

This feels like an odd assumption to make about my comment. I don't think all meetings are a waste of time and I certainly don't think people with different work preferences than me are dullards.

My experience has been heavy on people who skip reading in favor of a meeting even when the reading is to provide historical context, summarize learnings, and present what we know about a situation. Not reading turns what should have been a productive, forward looking discussion into a meeting rehashing old information for the folks who didn't do their homework.

In my professional life, I've encountered far more people who prefer to have meetings that could have been emails than I have people who think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of time for a discussion but perhaps my use of "default behavior" was a bit strong.

I suspect the meeting-heavy cultures and aversion to reading I've encountered are largely driven by discomfort with writing, not reading which is where articles like this one could add some value.

[notahacker]

> This feels like an odd assumption to make about my comment.

I mean, "refuse to read more than 3 sentences" (or "the TLDR of the business world" and "I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so" in others' comments in the same subthread) seems like unrealistic as well as incredibly uncharitable assumptions to make about people's general motivations for requesting followup calls. Especially if the subject matter of the original email was something as non-trivial as "a clear set of strategic choices"

Indeed, if it ends up actually taking 30 minutes to explain an email, it's obvious both that the other person is putting far more time and effort into the call than they would have done into scanning the email text, and that the email itself couldn't possibly have communicated all the information the caller [felt that they] needed to know in sufficient detail.

Which doesn't guarantee that the "quick call" was actually a productive use of time, or that the caller's questions are particularly good ones or that the caller couldn't have included followup questions in their reply, but if somebody can't think of any reason why colleagues receiving their email would call for clarification other than lack of interest in reading, there's a decent chance it's not [just] the colleagues with the communication problems. Even if the colleagues don't have additional information to add and seem fixated on something which point 11b was supposed to rule out.

Sure, as the number of people in a group meeting grows the probability someone hasn't read (or has read and has completely forgotten) the meeting prep notes approaches 1, but that's a separate issue from people receiving an email and calling for one-to-one clarification.

[abathur]

Have you entertained the possibility that we can tell, in said call, that the person who immediately requested the call needs the email explained to them (or asks multiple questions recapitulating the basics of the email) before they can contribute?

I'm not complaining about people asking questions to clarify or build on their understanding of the email. (Or even a lack of understanding; it's hard to build enough shared context to communicate well.)

You're the one here uncharitably projecting the assumption that we're punishing people for asking reasonable questions about something they made an effort to read.

[fl001]

I agree