> The company cannot 100% align with what best works for you.

There's 2 thoughts in that one sentence

1. The overall productivity of the company may be increased having a single individual accomplish less of their _individual_ goal. People helping each other can multiply productivity.

2. What one person thinks works best for them may not _actually_ be what makes them the most productive. It is a very rare person that works best in a complete silo, separated from any input from others; likely almost nobody. It is an _uncommon_ person that doesn't benefit from some amount of casual discussion about what they're working on. If a developer thinks they are most productive working on their solution start to finish without ever discussing it with someone else; odds are that developer isn't very good at what they do.

The authors approach, in my opinion, will lead to nothing but confrontation and probably decrease productivity significantly. Then again, it sounds like that's the goal

> So in my opinion, the author is a little bit selfish too. The company cannot 100% align with what best works for you.

No, of course not. It is a scale/grade where balance needs to be found. Unfortunately, in some companies the balance is really off where in order to maintain your sanity you do need to set clear boundaries like this. If not you will not even be able to think clearly as you are in a constant state of being interrupted.

There is also a big difference in the quality of quick questions.

For example.

1. Bad, no context: Hey, quick question.

2. Still not good: Hey, quick question about why Y is part of X (where the reasoning is clearly documented).

3. Better: Hey, I was looking at Y and X and see the reasoning for doing it like this, but I still have some questions about the details.

As far as why I rate these the way I do:

1. certainly is bad because it just means I get a ping, need to respond, need to wait for the answer (being distracted again from what I was doing), etc.

2. Is just a waste of time but is okay enough as I can just point to the documentation and ask to follow up if the question is not covered.

3. Is much better as I know what it is about, you have the right knowledge as well, and now we can actually answer your question in a meaningful way.

Having typed this out I realize I am just repeating the article. Which also does not say that everything needs to be a meeting with a clear agenda. It basically boils down to one thing if you want something from someone make sure to include enough context. It really is not that difficult :)

To me it seems more about scheduling a meeting when a simple email or message might do. Which is kind of the opposite of scheduling meetings with agendas etc.

If it’s really a “quick question” just write it down and in the off chance that it develops into something else you can have that meeting.

Of course it’s also a cultural/etc. thing. Some people are just horrible at expressing themselves in text or communicating asynchronously (the “Hello [I won’t tell you what I need until you reply”] ones or those that think that they are being helpful by making their messages as terse, short and consequentially vague and unspecific as possible)

I’m not sure how can that be beneficial for the team/company if it significantly affects productivity.

Why go for a quick 5 min call when an email thread that will need you to context switch 10 times will do? That being said there is a lot of meeting which should be replaced by a email and vice-versa. Also, When there is something you don’t understand properly, coming up with the right question or meeting agenda can be very hard. Finding a common ground is better served by face 2 face communication rather than an email. When a slack thread is getting too long, a quick 5-10min VC often do wonders.

And replacing all slack threads with meetings is similarly non-productive. Making everything a slack thread and refusing to ever go to meetings is bad. But refusing to write anything down and forcing everyone to exclusively go to meetings is bad. So find the most effective through line. Most often that’s: 1. Slack message with enough context that someone can answer 2. Discuss on slack until it’s clear the topic is going to need 3+ people to decide on or is in need of higher bandwidth, such as a screen share or just is urgent enough that talking while moving would be faster 3. Hop on that quick call 4. When you realize you’re missing folks you need or whatever and it’s not urgent enough to drag them into the call, set up a full meeting

Nothing in the article contradicts the above flow, and the above flow is what works best in my experience

Finding a middle ground where communication is both efficient and respectful of individual needs is key

Yep. Frankly, these articles are just keyboard warrior antics from introverts that are feeling on top of the world with the wave of WFH. Conflating “what’ll get me back to my IDE faster” and “how can I make all communication so structured that I never have to genuinely interact with anyone at work on a human level” with an actual increase in productivity is just a sign of immense naivety.

Thankfully these people tend to be quite vocal about these views online so I can appropriately take it as a soft red flag when hiring.

Or, these articles are written by people who deal with so many "quick calls" and a continuous stream of meeting invites without clear agendas that it actually does stop them from performing what is their actual job description.

This would also apply to people working in offices where someone stops by their desk every five minutes. If you are constantly being disrupted in your work, have to shift focus, rinse, repeat, it makes sense to start setting boundaries.

Question, do your job openings by default include one of these phrases?

- Thrives in high-stress environments

- Excels in demanding situations

- Delivers outstanding results in challenging circumstances

- Effective in fast-paced, high-pressure settings

- Demonstrates resilience in demanding conditions

- Capable of handling high-pressure tasks

> how can I make all communication so structured

I think this is a really key point. For many developers, human communication feels hard or full of seemly useless rituals.

Making communication something well defined and structured helps to get a feel of control and to deal with it in a less anxious way.

It's a welcome change from the extroverted era to be honest. There's a middle ground somewhere though, including but not limited to cutting through the bullshit, posturing and rituals and getting to the point.

Only few of them would be un-anonymously vocal about it.

I believe most will fake enjoying those random social situations in order to get the job.

I'm the furthest thing from an introvert and I still despise having managers pulling me into unprompted random bullshit calls that could've been a slack message, usually because they don't read the status messages posted by the people doing the actual work.

The large, overwhelming majority of impromptu meetings I've ever been in that didn't have a fellow engineer on the other end of the call have been nothing but massive time wasters. And usually if it's another engineer a few messages is more than enough, anyways.

Neither 1 nor 2 are obvious. They sound more like ego to me.