[AdieuToLogic]

> Too much time is spent attempting to communicate and as such, communication isn't actually happening.

This is where I think we have a different definition of communication.

> (i.e. we all spend way too much time in useless meetings where nothing happens and few people are any more informed than they were before)

Hence my clarification of:

  Most meetings are not about communication. They are usually 
  prescriptive in form and dictatorial in nature.

For example, if a project kick-off meeting consists of the highest ranking managers talking and everyone else having no contribution, listen to what they are saying; their "vision" is all that matters.

Another example is when product and/or engineer managers use "stand-ups" to ask each engineer the status of their deliverables. Listen to what they are saying; we micromanage and do not trust the team.

  Listening is a skill, one which is can be perfected if practiced.

[fragmede]

That's certainly one way of looking at daily stand-up. The other way is that humans aren't perfectly spherical communicators so sometimes daily stand-up really does manage to bring up blockers for the manager to actually resolve.

[AdieuToLogic]

>> Another example is when product and/or engineer managers use "stand-ups" to ask each engineer the status of their deliverables. Listen to what they are saying; we micromanage and do not trust the team.

> That's certainly one way of looking at daily stand-up. The other way is that humans aren't perfectly spherical communicators so sometimes daily stand-up really does manage to bring up blockers for the manager to actually resolve.

Good point.

I should have made the example more germane by saying "(always|only) using stand-ups for status updates." My apologies for the ambiguous exemplar.

EDIT:

Speaking of daily stand-ups...

IMHO, there are only two questions which need be asked of each team member in a stand-up:

  1 - Is there anything you need from anyone in
      order to be successful *today*?

  2 - Is there anything you want to share with
      the rest of the team?

Any other questions/concerns need to be addressed separately.

[colechristensen]

Standard philosophical problem, you're disagreeing about the definition of a word instead of the content of the message.

Step back and think if a dispute over the usage of the word is necessary or helpful in this context.

Amusingly this is where a lot of communication goes to die, loss of the big picture and discussion of how to use particular words.

Clearly you agree with OP about how time is wasted but you're insisting on using different language to express the same idea.

[AdieuToLogic]

> Standard philosophical problem, you're disagreeing about the definition of a word instead of the content of the message.

Perhaps I should have said we have a different understanding or expectation of communication, instead of "definition." For this confusion I introduced, I apologize.

> Clearly you agree with OP about how time is wasted but you're insisting on using different language to express the same idea.

I do not.

Again, as I previously self-quoted:

  Most meetings are not about communication. They are usually 
  prescriptive in form and dictatorial in nature.

OP postulated:

  Or maybe we're spending too much time on communicating.

To which I disagreed. OP then opined:

  If too much time is allocated then its hard to stay focused 
  and there's always the next time that can be used to 
  clarify.

Which is an indirect reference to meetings, not communication.

Finally, OP concluded with:

  Cut all the unnecessary meetings and only allocate the 
  minimum viable time to communicate. Then everyone will be 
  listening.

Which erroneously correlates meetings with listening. Your original response included:

  ... we all spend way too much time in useless meetings where 
  nothing happens ...

Thus reinforcing said erroneous correlation. I blame myself for insufficiently expressing my thoughts on the difference between listening, which is implicit in communication and the topic of the article, and meetings, which are an assembly of people requiring only physical presence.

[colechristensen]

You're still doing it. Now with "definition" vs. "a different understanding or expectation of"

You are not understanding, perhaps willfully, what people are writing and muddying the waters by trying to make unimportant distinctions about words instead of engaging with the meaning as intended by the author.

Every one of your clarifications has just been a pedantic restatement of what someone else clearly meant using different words trying to make a distinction which is not at all necessary to make.

[AdieuToLogic]

> You are not understanding, ...

Clearly I am not understanding your perspective on this topic.

> ... perhaps willfully, ...

Not at all and something I had hoped to communicate by a detailed analysis of the thread thus far.

> ... what people are writing and muddying the waters by trying to make unimportant distinctions about words instead of engaging with the meaning as intended by the author.

Words have meaning and I chose mine carefully. There is no such thing as "unimportant distinctions about words" if the words used have differing meanings and can reasonably be interpreted as conveying different thoughts.

> Every one of your clarifications has just been a pedantic restatement ...

This is one way to categorize my communication in this thread. Another way would be to say we disagree and perhaps have talked past each other.

I guess I still need to improve my listening skills. Perhaps you need to as well.