|Re: Email||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Moz (listmoz.geek.nz)|
|Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:11:35 -0800 (PST)|
R.P. Aditya said: > The reason for that explicit request to make decisions in a meeting in > the policy is that just as there are so many of us who use the written > word to communicate effectively, we also have to include those who > prefer to do it verbally. Unfortunately they usually also say "and everyone has to participate in the verbal process". Which actively excludes people who can't deal with large groups of people constantly talking at each other and interrupting and digressing and just talkiingovereachother and there are lots of them and they keep talking at me and demanding stuff from me and there are so many of them and they talk so fast and what they say doesn't make sense even when they say it several times which they always do and how long is this going to go on for and if you demand that I speak why won't you listen when I do why can't I leave and that's not what I said when will it stop. But I'll accept that. On the proviso that the decision will be written down. No caveats, no post-hoc exceptions based on stuff that didn't get recorded. If it's not in the written decision, it's not part of the decision. Part of the process, by all means, but not part of the final decision. > However much I (and apparently you) would prefer the clarity of > written discussions, there are times when the emotional content > isn't carried or misinterpreted in writing or simply doesn't suit > everyone. I can understand that some people like face to face meetings. I like that they do, really. But for me those meetings are a lot of work, hard to process, unpleasant, usually tedious, and too often result in people disagreeing with me about how I feel. Usually to my face, and vigorously. At the very least I need to have an audio recording of the meeting so I can review it and try to understand what happened (the recording is often an issue). Also, "great social skills" must necessarily mean the ability to deal effectively with people having different levels of social skills. This nonsense that someone has "great skills" but those skills can be accidentally defeated by someone whose skills are not great? Does not make sense. In other field an expert is still an expert in the presence of someone dumb as a rock. Moz
- Re: Email, (continued)
- Re: Email R.P. Aditya, January 13 2013
- Re: Email Moz, January 13 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.