This is why markets are an effective protocol for multi-agent coordination.
Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
131–140 of 279 posts
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#132Nuance is hard to convey in groups, but I believe that *a small part of the problem is a lack of design*. Many peoples' eyes glaze over when they see a wall of text in an email and they just skim rather than read. Some simple things to enhance communications can be the following. * Use a few bullet points to put attention on the main points you want to convey. * Without going overboard, use a tasteful amount of graph…
I started to follow this approach [1] 5 years ago and it is amazing how much clearer my own thoughts in communication have become.
1. Subjects with keywords. The subject clearly states the purpose of the email, and specifically, what you want them to do with your note. Keywords: ACTION, SIGN, INFO, DECISION, REQUEST, COORD
2. Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF). Lead your emails with a short, staccato statement that declares the purpose of the email and action required. The BLUF should quickly answer the five W’s: who, what, where, when, and why. An effective BLUF distills the most important information for the reader.
3. Be economical. Short emails are more effective than long ones, so try to fit all content in one pane, so the recipient doesn’t have to scroll. Use active voice, so it’s clear who is doing the action. If an email requires more explanation, you should list background information after the BLUF as bullet points so that recipients can quickly grasp your message. Link to attachments rather than attaching files. This will likely provide the most recent version of a file. Also, the site will verify that the recipient has the right security credentials to see the file, and you don’t inadvertently send a file to someone who isn’t permitted to view it.
===
[1] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#133Twitter threads are really awful to read through and, in this case, funny since it is a thread about communication.
Nothing really useful in the thread but the conclusion caught my attention: "Azure has, of course, also lapped Google on enterprise features & sales and is a solid #2 in cloud despite starting with infrastructure that was a decade behind Google's, technically."
This didn't happen because of any communication strategy from VPs to developers. It happened because MS is an enterprise company with a strong brand.
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#134This is very distressing to me. When I try to communicate using examples or analogies, people often get stuck on a particular example and try to solve that example.
Communication is very hard.
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#135It seems "group communication can't be nuanced" doesn't capture the situation he's describing at Azure. My hunch would be management saw reliability levels as a given, something that daily orders wouldn't change whereas velocity was something that daily order could change.
But just as much, this is a Microsoft division. That company has historically won by having more features sooner than competitors with the problem of the whole thing being a mess being a secondary consideration. Sure, in this case, the risk is they'll push so hard the whole thing blows up - but that doesn't mean you don't push as hard as possible because it's at least perceived that if you don't that, whether you blow-up or not won't matter (see the concept of technical debt, etc).
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#136Flat orgs are very popular right now, but isn’t it a huge benefit of a hierarchical organization with subparts that rather than the President of Azure getting on a VTC and telling the whole division that the goal is velocity he can explain to his reports (a small group) that they need velocity with reliability and they can explain to their reports (more small groups) and so on and so forth? Yes, nuanced comms don’t s…
One reason is that non-scaled comms suffer from “telephone game”. If you do it like you’re saying, then go down 3-4 levels in the hierarchy and check what people are hearing, it will have mutated away from anything you originally said. Sometimes to get everyone aligned (as best you can) you have to give everyone the same message at the same time — but it has to be a simple message.
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#137Reminds me of politics. Try having a nuanced public policy discussion. What's especially bad about that is it makes people identify more strongly with their respective sides and double down on more extremest ideas.
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#138If Dan is right (and I think he is), have a stiff drink nearby and then think about how his point applies to something complicated that is life and death, such as conveying information to the public about a rampant virus.
To me it was eye-opening to see just how bad people were at understanding what they were told in the clear, simplified language of public statements regarding COVID.
I don't just mean "lay people", I mean the relatively well-educated HN crowd and even some medical professionals misunderstood what was said. Across the entire group, literally every part of what was publicly said by government agencies was misinterpreted in some way and turned into an argument.
For example, the "We don't recommend the general public wear masks at this time" was consistently misinterpreted to mean "Masks don't work", which is not what was said at all. The more nuanced and complex statement has too many parts to it, and just like Dan Luu said, the second you have an AND or an OR, (or IF, THEN, BUT, etc...) people will just blank and see some random subset of the logical statement.
The full nuanced statement was: "The CURRENT scientific evidence that is available does not support (OR deny!) that mask wearing by (specifically) the general public is (cost) effective enough to legally mandate. ALSO, at THIS TIME there is insufficient supply of masks, AND UNTIL supply can be increased the masks should be prioritised for health workers (that are trained to wear them properly)."
(This of course implies that once evidence is available to support the efficacy of public mask wearing AND the supply problems are solved, the recommendation may change.)
Something like 50% of the people listening to that misunderstood it. And then when the recommendation changed, they lost their minds. "I don't even know what to believe any more! They keep saying different things!" was a common response.
People got especially confused by the "current scientific evidence does not support", because to them that sounds like "scientists say it doesn't work". That's not what that says at all, it's just a statement to say that not enough studies have been done at all to say anything one way or another confidently.
This kind of precise speech as heard from scientists is ironically less effective than simpler but technically incorrect statements!
For developers: One issue I've had with Agile techniques is that that same people that just can't wrap their heads around government agencies changing their recommendations to fit the changing scenarios of an unfolding event like a pandemic also work in large enterprises and are unable to comprehend a plan changing. Ever. Not even once. Everything has to be known ahead, forever, and be set in stone and never change in any way. It's "just too confusing", a sentence I've heard verbatim more than once.
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#139We need to talk more about this. That said, Organizations with professionals should be able to do nuance, at least a bit of it. But the general public at large ... you're dealing with 'lowest common denominator' which is 'issues with literacy' and harder to grasp - very limited, care, attention span, and may not even be listening to the message - and may be getting misinformation from elsewhere. Communicating clearly…
The approach used by most famous religious books (bhagavadgita, etc.) is statements with many layers of meanings. For example, such a book might say "do to others what you want others do to yourself" and a well-meaning simpleton gets only the surface level meaning, while a more advanced reader sees the more profound meaning, which might've offended simpletons. So everyone gets exactly as much as useful for them. Metaphors are used for the same reason.
Re: Nuanced communication usually doesn't work at scale
#140If Dan is right (and I think he is), have a stiff drink nearby and then think about how his point applies to something complicated that is life and death, such as conveying information to the public about a rampant virus.
Among other things, we are suffering from a "righteousness" arms race - whatever opinion or tendency we have, we have to find a righteous and moral reason for that feeling, because someone will find a moral reason for the opposite view.
Speaking down from a moral high ground obviously does not motivate everyone to do what we want, but it does motivate everyone ... a) it makes those who agree feel good for following the agreed rules b) it makes those who disagree feel like their human experience is invalid and motivates them to find a counter argument that feels just as strong (I HAVE to fight to protect my RIGHTS)
Obviously this is not the only thing that's going on. Every crisis is someone's opportunity.