Documentation is all well and good, but also having people who can solve domain problems rather than just describe them ought to be a priority among many to have a mix in the organization. Less capable people can document what someone more skilled solved if they're not great communicators (I knew several people exactly like this). Having all documenters doesn't necessarily allow tackling hard problems but could risk reducing the bar to who can communicate in-lieu of doing hard things. There is a finite supply of hard problem solvers and even fewer far who can communicate well. It may or may not be cheaper to hire one who can't communicate and a technical writer or junior staffer rather than an all-in-one unicorn who can do everything.
To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
151–160 of 332 posts
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#152Weak writing skills = lower information throughput = worse at remote work. Obvious or not?
Sorry nevermind, this was a misleading title. The article is actually about writing more documentation to decrease onboarding time. I think this is also true for non-remote onboarding. Better title would be "Writing great documentation decreases onboarding time for remote employees". Not really sure why this has > 300 votes. I guess people read the title and agreed.
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#153It's not an issue for me, but how does this gel with discrimination laws? If the reason a candidate is a worse communicator is a protected characteristic, you can't (legally) reject them on that basis.
(Not that I necessarily think that's net good, but it is the case.)
I'm not so clear on where you stand if you just see poor communication and really honestly have no idea of the reason for it, they don't say and it doesn't give itself away.
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#154I find this trope quite boring; you know who is good, people who can code, people with high IQs and people with the right experience. Being able to write is probably about the same as people who can design as well as code. Sure it’ll be useful but hiring experts in these areas should be your ultimate goal. No startup was killed ever by a bad prose style. So after reading the article (ha imagine) it is are NOT about w…
> No startup was killed ever by a bad prose style.
With the uptick in startups trying to be passive-aggressive, witty, and provocative in their social media posts, I would disagree. Your product doesn't have to be edgy. If it is, it tells me that your product probably has no merit in and of itself.
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#155Quote: "To learn more about what it’s like to work at Mattermost and to see our current open roles, check out our Careers page."
So I went to check that, see what they have. And puff, Firefox informed me it has stopped a tracker on that page.
To paraphrase: "Nice tracker you have there Mattermost, would be a shame is somebody would point it out"
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#156My two cents:
1. English is not my first language, and Grammarly helps a lot. Small things like correct punctuation and articles make the text much easier to read for native speakers.
2. I try to make communication "modular". There is tension between over-communicating (giving full context) and under-communicating (leaving out details). The first sentence of each paragraph summarizes the point. If you know that stuff already, you can skip. If you are re-reading, you can quickly get up to speed by skimming first sentences. If you are surprised by the first sentence, read the paragraph.
3. I often use numbers so that my recipient can answer or discuss just one point from my text. That usually starts with "Ad2". You can then "split" the discussion by numbering annotations "Ad2.1". If the conversation gets too long and convoluted, we need to add a summary of what we've written. Both Slack and email have flat conversation structure (Slack threads can go one level deep). That flat structure is usually a good thing for someone following the discussion.
It is very natural, and most people reply in the same way instinctively.
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#157As far as writing is concerned my moment of enlightenment came when I read "Nobody wants to read your sh*t". The book is not about any particular "effective writing" skills, etc. it is about writing in such a way that someone will actually read what was written.
The author applied that to copy-writing (he was working in the ads business), but this applies so well to everyday emails exchange or writing documentation.
Making someone to read and comprahend something is not an easy task since a lot of people are getting used to (or maybe already got used to) communication using 200 chars tweets or a memes.
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#158I've been working on remote teams for almost 20 years. The key to success is overcommunicating. In other words--don't assume people have full context or share assumptions. Write emails that lay out assumptions explicitly and detail problems completely. As a manager I sometimes feel like a Habsburg bureaucrat buried in the Chancery offices sending painstaking messages to a far flung empire. Come to think of it, remote…
As a manager, you can probably get away with this. As an IC, people rarely read my emails if it doesn't fit in their screen (so 3 paragraphs is the max). The only thing I've found that works is to send details, and then probe the recipient on each important item in there to make sure they understood what I wrote. If I'm too detailed, they will get lost. If I'm very concise (but still complete ), they'll misinterpret.…
> As I said: You can write the perfect email, and there will always be someone who will misinterpret it. The problem is not merely in the content, but in the other (including their worldview, culture, social status, etc). The solution isn't to try to become a more perfect writer, but to understand the dynamics involved in communication (written or verbal).
Wiio's laws are always relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws
The main thesis being "Communication usually fails, except by accident".
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other thing working remote forces me to do is to actually think before I assign a task to someone or ask a question. It's a lot easier to casually interrupt someone with half a thought than to write a poorly thought out email.
That is also the main advantage of email over IM. Email kind of forces some effect of the remoteness you described even when everyone is in the same office.
You're using IM wrong :)
You don't have to read the message when it arrives just because it instantly arrived.
Re: To find great remote employees, prioritize candidates with strong writing skills
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you was taught that in elementary school and thus literally concluded that it is impossible to read something without knowing conclusion first is what makes it cultural. The fact that he and everyone around him sees conclusion up front as jumping the gun and likely was taught that structure in school, is what makes it cultural. > How could you read anything without knowing the point in the beginning. Ev…
It doesn't make sense as being cultural because there plenty of real examples of effective writing that starts with what you are writing about. The only exception might be in story telling, but that only works because there is some kind of context assumed or it works as a tool. It makes no sense for this "culture" to think less of research or any writing that intends to persuade because it starts with a introduction…
> It doesn't make sense as being cultural because there plenty of real examples of effective writing that starts with what you are writing about.
This is a non-argument. In the US, writing is considered effective if you put the bottom line up front. GP wrote that BLUFfing is considered offensive in their culture. Now you respond that lots of people like BLUFfing.
Now you say it's not culture-dependent but a universal truth that BLUF is better.
Well, other cultures disagree.