Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukethomas | Hacker News Reader

There's some truth to this, but holy smokes, another meeting is not the cure.

There is value in "venting" at work. A few years ago I built a software tool that pings people at the end of the week asking how their week went. Some of the quietest people in the company had the most to say when they were behind a screen. In fact, some people literally called it therapeutic. It turns out that writing things down can serve as a form of "therapy" (source: https://positivepsychology.com/writing-therapy/)

If you lead a team, I'd strongly recommend you have a feedback mechanism like this in place, but a meeting is not the right medium. It's just a place for the extroverts to complain.

If you do hold a meeting for this stuff, a 1-1 is probably the best way to surface a similar level of information.

View on HN

Perhaps you are being overly dismissive of the "extroverts" needs in the situations you are describing...

Some might just "complain", but others feel safer being vocal in a group of people.

You mention understanding that some of the quietest people have the most to say behind a screen, well, I imagine there is a non-insignificant group of people who feel much safer talking it out within a group where there isn't a written record and they can judge the crowd's reaction immediately.

I wouldn't consider myself anywhere close to an extrovert and I would consider myself more candid in spoken communications at work, even when my whole team is present.

Just my 2 cents.

I am an extrovert and have found value in discussion with others. The issue is that this tends to be aimless and there's zero structure, which wastes a ridiculous amount of time.

I'd much rather complete an async update and then follow-up with an in-person meeting to talk about the things that were documented beforehand.

It's a much more efficient approach and you get better insights too.

I could have misinterpreted him, but I do not believe the intent was to dismiss the extroverts but rather to point out the lack of balance in that approach. I have observed this as well, as the "lets have a meeting" approach gathers one type of useful feedback, while the one-on-one (or even written) approach gathers different types of feedback.

Most work places are heavily dominated by the extroverts. The sales and executive teams are all extroverts. So is the marketing team. IMO it's fair to consider the other side of the coin, there's virtually no way that extroverts aren't going to continue to rule the workplace.

There is an old joke about extroverted accountants looking at your shoes rather than their own.

Its that time of year again were everyone gets ready for holiday sales blitz. Marketing teams the world over keep talking about how they are going to drive revenue.

After you factor in overtime, technology support, shipping delays and the knock on effects of stress (look at deployments, LOC produced, and so on in Jan and Feb) you quickly see that the hit on the bottom line is bigger than anyone ever thought of (and more so this season).

You don't have to be an extrovert to build a chart and a graph of this (and the other phenomena) that points out reality, and its impact. It tends to temper people singing their own praises (what extroverts are really good at) without having the data to back it up.

The message from this, go find the other introverts, find out what they do, and how it matters to you. Corporations are a lot like spider webs, tug on one thread and the whole thing vibrates, it is just a question of how much and where. Your fellow introverts are the keys to figuring out where, and if they are meaningful.

Playing the devil’s advocate, if what you say is true, that most of an organization is extroverted, why would you want to optimize your feedback process for the introverts? Is the reason that you believe the extroverts’ voice is already heard?

Extroverts are over-represented because they're the loudest voices. Introverts have a lot to offer but they're pushed aside.

> Some of the quietest people in the company had the most to say when they were behind a screen.

This is very much me. I am an introvert, and despite being a team lead, will get run over by louder more assertive folks. I'm learning to stick up for myself (only been a lead for 2 months) but it's a long road.

With an email or chat, I can reformulate what I mean to say multiple times. Refine my message and make it clearer and cite sources. I can also take the time to examine my emotions and motivations in creating the email, and sometimes just discard a whole email if I've managed to work through something myself.

Unfortunately for people like me, extroverts tend to be most visible so their preferred way of doing things, talking in meetings, is how a lot of business seems to be conducted.

You sound similar to me a few years back!

Here is what I did (suggested by a boss who was magic with meeting effectiveness), YMMV:

- Come to meetings with a short list of decisions to be made or expected contributions

- Bring suggested resolutions if I owned the meeting / was primary technical resource / team lead and had some to suggest -- and communicate that these are the default in absence of consensus or buy-in

- Put discussion time allotted stacked to each decision to be made (moderately flexible)

- Always end meetings early if no more content is to be discussed

Meeting agendas can be powerful.

And for managers, I suggest being diligent in a) making sure that the introverts get heard, and b) training everybody in making sure everybody gets heard.

I've been on teams for the last two years that use the Sprint Retrospective as a venting venue. Then the Scrum Master processes that into meaningful items that require resolution. Sometimes, the resolution is agreed within the same meeting (e.g. 'we have an internal communication problem' - discuss a bit - 'we can try $this next sprint'), sometimes it falls to an outside dependency (e.g. 'The Business doesn't trust us to estimate, but we have a proven track record' - scrum master agrees to take the concern to The Business.)

Managers are not permitted at these meetings, because they should be "safe."

Retrospectives are a common place for this, and I think a fairly healthy one. They're limited in a way that meetings aren't, and they're already structured to take informal comments and process them into useful actions. I've seen too many meetings that amounted to "complaining about external blockers", and unlike retros there's almost never a useful followup.

I've never seen "managers aren't permitted", but I suppose it depends on the level of manager - as long as everyone present got their hands relatively dirty on the project, things seem to go well.

I think well-structured retrospectives are way better than 1:1s for this in that they let people express feelings, but channel those into choosing and pursuing productive actions.

In particular, for the get-the-feelings activities, the Retromat has a number of good items in the "set the stage" and "gather data" categories. E.g., Weather Report is good for a quick feeling survey: https://retromat.org/en/?id=2

Or you can do Satisfaction Histogram or Amazon Review to collect reactions to specific topics: https://retromat.org/en/?id=87 and https://retromat.org/en/?id=18

Reply on news.ycombinator.com