Posts in Communication (5 found)
iDiallo 1 weeks ago

How to Talk to Your Coworkers

You know you explained the same issue before in two or three different places, yet here they are asking again. Why don't they understand you? Why do they ask the same question when you've already given them the answer right there on Jira? Are they stupid? Lazy, maybe? Do they not take the time to read? I often hear this from developers. They write clear documentation and instructions, and people still bother them to hop on a call. This happens so frequently that I think it is worth addressing. An over-abundance of information is just as confusing as too little. But something I should add is that repetition is normal. In fact, repetition should be a tool you use frequently. To do our jobs as developers, we read instructions. Our tasks are usually carefully written and specced out as a document we can implement and check off. There are usually bullet points, requirements, and acceptance criteria. Sometimes, you could implement a feature by following the instructions without even knowing or understanding what the feature actually does. In other jobs, non-technical ones, people derive their work from conversation. A lossy format. For example, when a non-technical manager wants a new feature, they'll have a conversation with a software architect. A conversation that the architect then has to turn into a spec that a developer can implement. One group talks in instructions, the other in conversations. Which is why they often talk past each other. Whenever I hear developers complain that someone keeps pestering them with questions they've already answered, I know it's because they're speaking two different languages. Just because you provided an answer doesn't mean everyone saw it or understood it. You might think you're giving a fine explanation of how a feature works by describing how the different APIs interact. But you fail to see that your audience has no frame of reference for understanding that APIs are supposed to work together, or what an API even is. In that same vein, a manager who wants to have meetings and conversations about every step of development might find that people are declining their invites. For that manager, meetings and discussions are how work gets done, while others are expecting purely documented instructions. In simple terms, the answer to this problem is: Translate and Repeat. By translation, I don't mean language, I mean frame of reference. There is always a temptation to provide all available information, whether it's too technical or too detailed. Again, too much information no information. Instead of explaining how you are solving a problem, focus on what your solution does. For example, I recently worked on a widget that was showing the incorrect number of sales for the month, and only a handful of customers were complaining. Long story short, it turned out that running a job at what we call nighttime is someone else's daytime. Those customers were accessing the widget before the job ran, and the data was cached for a full day. Meaning they were seeing stale data for up to 24 hours. Our fix involved revamping how we display data, we removed caching and created a normalized table that updates in real time, eliminating the need for a complex query. Internally, we had created new APIs and restructured database tables. What looked like a handful of numbers on the UI was far more complicated under the hood. But when explaining this to a manager, they don't need to know about the cron job, the caching strategy, or how the old system compared to the new one. All they need to know is: "We've updated the widget to display real-time data, and we've added a smarter caching strategy for performance." That's the whole answer. If they want the nitty-gritty details, we can have a separate conversation. But developers often start with the technical autopsy first because that's what we would want if another developer asked us. We want the root cause, the stack trace, the PR link. The problem is, different audiences require different information. While leading with the technical breakdown might make you sound thorough in a meeting, non-technical attendees will walk out clueless and ping you on Slack asking the same questions. The goal isn't to eliminate questions entirely. In fact, no matter how well you tailor your message to your audience, someone will still come back with the same question you already answered. That's exactly why repetition matters. It's fascinating to watch children learn. When I'm doing first-grade math with my kids, we use the same strategy for additions and subtractions. At first, it just doesn't click. I count on my fingers, I use popsicle sticks, and to make it fun I even use my toes. My method doesn't always make sense to them. We'll complete a whole packet of homework and I can tell they're just going through the motions. But we repeat it every day, the same way, no deviation. And somehow, eventually, they just know how to do the math. Not to compare your coworkers to children, but repetition works the same way on everyone. Every time they hear your explanation, they pick up one or two more pieces of it. When you keep saying "we upgraded the payment SDK," they don't know what that means, and stopping to explain that one concept isn't going to unlock the whole picture. But maybe they Google "SDK" on their own later. Then "payment SDK." The next time you repeat your explanation, they're better equipped to follow along. Each repetition gets them a little closer to understanding the full picture. The same applies to managers who rely on conversation to communicate with developers. While it can be hard to extract a clear requirement from a meeting, the information is in there. It just needs to be surfaced and shaped. And honestly a conversation is often a good way to kick things off. Imagine if the manager came in with rigid, detailed instructions while having no understanding of how the codebase actually works. Through conversation, a feature can take shape. Developers can push back, raise concerns, and adjust the scope to something realistic for the current state of the infrastructure. That back and forth is what filters raw ideas into actionable instructions. So when you post a Jira comment or Slack message with a detailed explanation of the authentication flow and token expiry logic and it goes ignored, it's not because your coworker is lazy. It was ignored because it was written in a language they don't speak. They asked again not to annoy you, but because they couldn't extract the answer they needed from what you gave them. You don't need to write longer comments or bold more words. Instead, ask yourself whether what you wrote was intended for the right audience, then translate it into something digestible. And be prepared to repeat it a few more times until it lands.

0 views
Brain Baking 6 months ago

Thumbs Up 👍

Don’t you hate it when that happens? You compose a targeted question, re-iterate the sentence a few times to make sure it is easy to interpret, press send, only to get a thumbs up in response? How should you even interpret that? Is that an ironic sure thing buddy go ahead I’ll revert your changes behind your back anyway ; is that a honest go for it! ; is that a whatever, no time right now but here’s something telling you I’ve read your thing ; or is that a too long didn’t read ? I don’t know, do you? Clear and effective human communication is one of the hardest things to get right. The widespread adoption of emojis only made the problem worse. Instead of adding context, by, you know, using words, like these, emojis manage to strip even more context, sometimes paradoxically by adding layers of confusion. Isn’t a thumbs up a universal sign of good! ? It’s not, as I’ve seen it being used and abused in ways I would never ever dare to stick out my own thumb, like I would probably never Roll On the Floor Laughing when sending ROFL. Shut up boomer, that’s also being replaced by an emoji. I know, I just proved my point. And I’m not that old (yet). You won’t find any usage of emojis in Brain Baking articles because I not only think they’re ugly or they form a danger to our ability to interpret longer texts, but also they induce ambiguity that always leaves me dazzled. Here’s some random proof why emojis just don’t work. Oh that’s what you meant! : reducing emoji misunderstanding by Tigwell and Flatla (2016—that’s almost ten years ago!): […] the purpose of the emoji was often misunderstood, e.g., “To me that looks like a nervous face but a lot of people use it as a really happy or excited face” This gets worse in cross-cultural communication according to Cominsky. It’s not just a cross-cultural problem, it’s also a generational problem: a study by Zahra and Ahmed revealed that emojis such as thumbs up, crying laughing and skull are more likely to cause mix-ups between generations . Or how about surrounding the emoji with textual context in order to reduce potential confusion? That was disproven by Miller et al. in Understanding Emoji Ambiguity in Context : The Role of Text in Emoji-Related Miscommunication: […] we found that our results do not support the hypothesis in prior work: when emoji are interpreted in textual contexts, the potential for miscommunication appears to be roughly the same. Guess what, Wang et al. found out that emotioanl emoji elicits are being abused by social media marketeers in order to increase customer engagement. Digging further specifically into thumbs-up emoji research, Bates writes about the recent court case recognising the thumbs-up emoji as having indicated contractual agreement, concluding that: Perhaps it is best that communication with icons stays within three general settings: (1) A highly contextualized environment, in which a limited number of symbols are to be clearly understood, as with road and airport signage, warning labels, and computer interfaces; (2) Interpersonal communication—private exchanges often prioritizing the establishment and maintenance of good relations; (3) Internet postings meant for public consumption (e.g., social media comments). A big thumbs up, Bates! See, that was easy, right? The last piece of research I’d like to share here is that of Shandilya et al. on using non-contextual communication in virtual workspaces like Slack and Google Chat. It looks like new employees first have to read between the lines and learn the intricate interpretation details of the micro-culture, sometimes even differing from team to team within the same company. Before we can send out a thumbs up, we first have to decode how others around us are using and interpreting it. Which might differ greatly from your habitually usage in causal app messages to friends. Fellow blogger Horst Gutmann recently pointed to another study on the connection between emojis and personality traits : heavy reliance on emojis seems to shape our perceived image—and not in a very good way. The biggest problem, however, is not using the thumbs-up emoji as part of a message: it is using the thumbs-up emoji as a reaction in itself—the recent phenomena called reaction emojis . A reaction is not a response. Our languages have words to form an expression, let’s make use of them. I sometimes receive conversation duds like that as an answer to three sentences of mine explaining how things are going. What am I supposed to do with that? If you’re not interested in knowing how I’m doing then don’t bother asking? My wife has one particular friend who simply replies all his messages with a thumbs up reaction. I would be inclined to stop exchanging messages at all with such a person. I ROFL-ed (how am I supposed to conjugate this?) when I read MaliciousDog’s opinion on emoji reactions on Reddit: They break the text consumption flow. In a coherent text, an emoji is somewhat like a fart in a middle of a nice song . It may be fun by itself or in an appropriate context but not everywhere. Like a fart in a middle of a nice song. By Wouter Groeneveld on 10 November 2025.  Reply via email .

0 views