[HN Gopher] Show HN: I built an app for when I talk too much in ...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: I built an app for when I talk too much in online meetings
Hey HN! Alexis here, I'm a product manager and software developer
in Berlin by way of New York. I want to show you this app I made -
It's like a "buddy" for those, like myself, who inadvertedly talk
too much in meetings. The app gives me feedback and a little more
in control of what I have influence over by: * Keeping track of
how long I've been speaking * Catching myself before I talk too
much * Developing a better sense of timing I truly love having
conversations with people in real-life. But online meetings,
especially group calls, tend to make me nervous. I can't read body
language. The tone of voice, micro-experessions and social cues get
lost. If you, too, accidentally talk too much too often, check it
out "Unblah". Watch the quick 2-minute demo and download the macOS
app over at https://unblah.me/. Cheers! Alexis PS: There's a
whole FAQ section for common questions you may have - Including if
this is yet another "native" Electron app ;) edit: bullet-list
formatting
Author : interleave
Score : 275 points
Date : 2022-07-14 13:09 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (unblah.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (unblah.me)
| litttle_b wrote:
| I especially appreciate seeing this kind of tool + level of self
| awareness, as a woman working in tech.
|
| For everyone here who's asking how to get their coworkers using
| something like this, there's a similar feature in Sesh (web app
| https://sesh.com/ and zoom app
| https://marketplace.zoom.us/apps/lmZj36WWSJut8-hAaUJrhQ ) that
| gives everyone equal opportunities to speak (and plays you off
| oscars-style when you go too long), and another feature called
| "talk time" that shows how long each person spent talking at the
| end of each meeting.
|
| At it's core, it's a really useful meeting agenda app, so sharing
| it is less "hey you talk too much" and more "let's make our
| meetings better and more equitable".
|
| I work there & am happy to demo or answer any questions about it
| :)
|
| Again, really love that you made a version of this that
| individuals can spin up for their own accountability without the
| need for whole-team buy in. The design is great too!
| [deleted]
| tetraca wrote:
| > that gives everyone equal opportunities to speak (and plays
| you off oscars-style when you go too long), and another feature
| called "talk time" that shows how long each person spent
| talking at the end of each meeting.
|
| As someone who'd rather not speak I dislike this. Now I can't
| just sit back, relax, and let the talkative people run out the
| clock. There's now a metric to punish my quietness. :P
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Yeah, not everyone has to talk in every meeting. Sometimes
| people will be taking in info and need time to absorb it.
| mulmen wrote:
| Do you mind elaborating on why this is especially important to
| you as a woman in tech?
| akhmatova wrote:
| Because it has been observed that if someone is talking too
| much at a meeting (and especially if they're talking about
| nothingburgers) -- usually it's a dude (at a rate
| disproportionate to their prevalence within the group).
| litttle_b wrote:
| I'm going to do a bit of "show, don't tell" here, because if
| you're asking this I'm assuming you're open to learning more
| about the sexism and bias that typically cause men to
| dominate conversations in tech/workplaces:
|
| https://www.indy100.com/news/victorias-secret-model-
| lyndsey-...
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-
| entrepreneu...
|
| https://hbr.org/1995/09/the-power-of-talk-who-gets-heard-
| and...
|
| https://janicetomich.com/women-speaking-while-female/
|
| https://time.com/3666135/sheryl-sandberg-talking-while-
| femal...
| wincy wrote:
| Jo Jorgensen, who ended up being the Libertarian
| presidential candidate in 2020, was accused of being given
| more time and more opportunities to speak by another
| candidate during the libertarian party debates.
|
| It was hilarious when he was told by the moderator that no,
| Jo had used the least time. She'd make a good point, then
| stop talking. No bloviating like the men.
| actfrench wrote:
| As another woman in tech, I thank you for your effort
| putting together these resources.
|
| Hopefully it will raise awareness and those men who support
| equality in the workplace and more importantly, see the
| value of women's ideas - ideas that they perhaps do not
| hear because they are not giving time for them to speak
| them- will benefit.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| Honestly this list is of dubious general value
|
| As a long timer man in tech, being a shy and private person
| and being uncomfortable speaking in public, I've
| experienced the same exact things listed in those articles
| for as long as I can remember, except having to fake a
| business partner cause I've never participated in a round
| of funding, but I'd probably hire one if I needed to.
| Because it would work better than sending myself.
|
| I've learned that those aren't my strongest skills and
| that's OK, I've become a very good writer instead, because
| it's something I like and I feel comfortable doing. to the
| point that people now ask me to help them or plainly ask me
| if they can pay me to write for them (notice that if you
| think my writing is mediocre it's because it's true:
| English is not my native language and foreign languages are
| another of those "not my strongest skills", I'm much better
| with programming languages)
|
| Sometimes things are as they are because we are as we are.
|
| I also think there's a cultural aspect to the phenomenon,
| in some countries, especially in USA, people are pressured
| to talk in public and express "dominance" or "confidence"
| by taking the stand.
|
| Fake until you make it they usually say.
|
| In my case it only made me feel more of an impostor, who
| was faking skills he did not have.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| What are you trying to show with the first link? It doesn't
| seem to link into men dominating conversations in the
| workplace.
| mulmen wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. I'm aware of talking over people and
| the dimensions on which it biases. I ask to uncover
| "unknown unknowns" of some other (unknown to me) behavior
| that might also need to be addressed.
|
| To be more specific, I am also afraid of over-indexing on
| inclusion. Do I call on female coworkers more often to
| speak up in areas where I know they are experts because I
| know they may not do so themselves? Is that fair to them?
| Does it make them feel inadequate or is it appreciated or
| does it not even register? If I ask Susan to elaborate on a
| sprint update but don't ask Frank does that signal that I
| don't trust Susan? What if I am really just interested in
| her task?
|
| I know the cliches about confident white men in tech.
| Talking over people, the white savior, etc. But, as a
| confident white man in tech I need input from everyone to
| be better. So, thanks for sharing.
| spdustin wrote:
| I'm not a female, but work for a women-owned tech company
| with a predominantly female staff, and I don't speak for
| women when I say this: yes, in my experience, you should
| call on female coworkers to share their opinions or
| insights. It's fair, and often appreciated, but _don't do
| it expecting gratitude_. Do it because you know their
| input matters.
|
| Many--not all--women have had it ingrained in them since
| childhood to defer to men, especially men in authority.
| If it's appropriate, don't make it an imperative
| statement like, "Susan, tell us your thoughts." Respect
| their agency, and ask, "Susan, is there anything you'd
| like to add" or "do you have an update to share on your
| task?" This applies to your male co-workers too, of
| course. Because, at the end of the day, none of this is
| about you. It's about what's best for the team, right?
|
| Knowing when to step up and when to step back and elevate
| others is one of the hardest things to learn about being
| a leader. But fostering a culture of open curiosity and
| collaboration is the best antidote to a culture of quiet
| resentment because someone feels ignored or left out.
|
| Not to mention the loss of productivity that imposter
| syndrome can cause...but that's a whole different thread.
|
| Anyway, just my experience on the matter. I personally
| think it's important to help men understand how their
| view of team dynamics may be exclusionary to women. I'm
| not speaking on behalf of women at all. If there's any
| question about how to best include any specific person in
| your organization, there's an easy way to get that
| question answered: ask them.
| Wohlf wrote:
| I think this is a really good practice in general! It
| would help people (like my younger self) who might be
| afraid to speak up or interrupt regardless of gender.
| lawrencevillain wrote:
| How can I share this with a coworker without being rude haha?
| interleave wrote:
| Totally understand. It's the most common question I've gotten
| for those who themselves experience 'the blah' by someone else.
|
| I published an FAQ (https://unblah.me/#faqs) earlier today.
| Posting it here for simplicity:
|
| ---
|
| Question: I have this person on my team who talks WAY too much
| and never notices it. They LOVE hearing themselves talk and
| never shut up. Should I tell them to get this app?
|
| ---
|
| Answer: First off... I believe your struggle with this person
| is 100% real. I fully believe their behavior is affecting you
| negatively.
|
| But, my answer is a STRONG NO. Please don't use Unblah as a
| proxy for a difficult conversation that sounds like it needs to
| be had.
|
| Think about it: They would never use it anyways, because, as
| you're saying yourself "...and never even notice it.".
|
| They don't have a problem.
|
| You do.
|
| I don't know how much rapport you two have, how much safe space
| you can create for resolving this situation, etc.
|
| So, to keep everyone safe, please check with HR or leadership
| on how to best deal with this situation if it impacts you, your
| team and your performance.
|
| For learning more on this kind of topic, I can recommend
| "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" by
| Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, and Sheila Heen.
| frogpelt wrote:
| This sounds like a possible next step for your app: "unblah"
| for teams.
| interleave wrote:
| Yes, has been on my radar for exactly that reason. I want
| to believe there is a wetware solution in there somewhere
| :)
| interleave wrote:
| And: You can always lead by example!
| spdustin wrote:
| I love apps like this, but every time I see one I lament that
| Zoom doesn't provide audio streams in distinct channels. Every
| "conversational intelligence" Zoom app seems to be forced to use
| speaker segmentation to identify who's talking. I wish they had
| the voice version of "Jane is typing..." like text chat
| applications.
|
| Edit: I recognize those apps are different from yours, which is
| local-only, and just monitors whether YOU are speaking without
| plotting others' speaking time.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| You don't need an app, you just need to shut your mouth.
| appletrotter wrote:
| You don't need crutches, you just need to walk.
| eccobay wrote:
| This type of analytics will make online meetings better in the
| long term, in the same way fitbit measured steps to quantify are
| you walking enough.
|
| A recent study (Q122) from Read highlighted
| (https://www.read.ai/benchmarks) that 28% of meetings have
| unbalanced participation and that 11% of participants in a
| meeting are in "ghost mode", no camera, no audio. The more
| measurement, the more opportunity for individuals and teams to
| improve.
| d3sandoval wrote:
| I'm going to use this for user interviews since I have a hard
| time talking too much during the introduction. Also, stand-ups...
| interleave wrote:
| Hope it helps you, ping me if you need anything.
|
| PS: The "introductions" are my personal Kryptonite.
| heisenbit wrote:
| Please release it on iOS as it can be more widely used and there
| is really a need for it.
| twald wrote:
| Thanks for sharing! Do you plan to add this to the menu bar in
| the future?
| interleave wrote:
| Hey there, you're very welcome.
|
| I hadn't thought of the menu bar yet. How would you want that
| to work?
| sent-hil wrote:
| Second that for a menu bar. Something to quickly glance up to
| see if I'm talking too much. PS, just downloaded, looks
| promising! Will try it and let you know.
| interleave wrote:
| Cool, thanks for giving it a spin, too!
|
| If there are any issues with the installation/set up, please
| let me know. Happy to jump on a call as well (See the contact
| button on the site)
| blackdogie wrote:
| Love this idea. I also thing there is a great use case here for
| people in sales, customer support / onboarding. Listening as a
| skill is very important for roles like this, and anything that
| can help people be a bit more conscious about this is great.
|
| A top bar icon for this could also be useful, so not to take up
| too my screen real estate, e.g. for example if you are giving a
| sales demo, you may want to hide the application, but still see
| visually how you are doing.
| alexcnwy wrote:
| Would definitely use this if it was a menu widget
| dskloet wrote:
| I don't understand how it can know if you talk too much. 30
| seconds can be too much if you don't have anything relevant to
| say but 30 minutes can be fine if you have a lot of important
| things to say. Does it transcribe what you say and match on bad
| patterns or something?
| youssefabdelm wrote:
| I couldn't agree more with this. If one were to truly solve
| this problem they'd have to do several things:
|
| 1. Understand who the listener is, and what they care about.
| What are their reinforcers, and attractors? What are the things
| they want to achieve that they haven't been able to so far.
| What is relevant information for them? What is their state of
| mind? Are they tired? Do they need to sleep, eat, go to the
| bathroom?
|
| 2. Understand the information content of the speech. A person
| can say a lot in a little time or a little in a lot of time
| (with the dependencies being questions listed above in #1. What
| is a 'little' for someone might be 'a lot' for someone else
| depending on how much they know).
|
| My concern with an app like this is multi-fold. Firstly, I have
| some very smart friends who read a lot and talk for hours but I
| never tire of it because they're always saying something new
| and interesting. Secondly, sometimes these friends are working
| out thoughts on the fly that they haven't before. Stopping
| before the thought is complete risks losing hidden gems,
| maxims/aphorisms, well-articulated and profound
| crystallizations of thought. A ticking time-bomb clock adds
| pressure to end this line of thought that may need time to
| manifest itself fully.
|
| That being said I totally see the flip side, that it can go on
| for too long, but I'd point back to all the concerns in #1.
| spdustin wrote:
| If you have thirty uninterrupted minutes of things to say, is
| that a meeting? Or is it a lecture/presentation? Is it better
| to break it up into discrete topics?
|
| Attendees of a meeting will quickly disengage if someone talks
| for too long. Attendees of a lecture or presentation have
| different expectations.
| dskloet wrote:
| Ok, but regardless "too much" heavily depends on context. It
| can't be that x minutes is the correct amount of time to talk
| regardless of what you are saying.
| interleave wrote:
| > If you have thirty uninterrupted minutes of things to say,
| is that a meeting? Or is it a lecture/presentation? Is it
| better to break it up into discrete topics?
|
| That's the key question that will frame how I schedule my
| attention and interjections.
|
| The reason I chose the times as seen is because they jive
| with my personal experience and the content of this article
| here: https://hbr.org/2015/06/how-to-know-if-you-talk-too-
| much
| reggieband wrote:
| I love this idea and I could see myself using it in 1:1 meetings
| with my direct reports.
|
| One of the advantages of getting older is the experience one
| gains. It is often the case that I can relate a current situation
| to one that has occurred in my past. This can help me make good
| decisions by anticipating expected similar outcomes to the most
| obvious approaches.
|
| Yet the other side of this is I can find myself droning on about
| old war stories to junior engineers. What I mean to be well-
| intentioned advice can turn into a monologue. This is especially
| true when I am giving advice "off-the-cuff" in response to
| situations brought up in 1:1 meetings with direct reports. I
| might struggle finding the best way to communicate my experience.
| This can cause me to rephrase the same idea several different
| ways in an attempt to clearly convey my thought.
|
| I feel this kind of tool could help me focus more on listening to
| the people I manage.
| interleave wrote:
| > Yet the other side of this is I can find myself droning on
| about old war stories to junior engineers.
|
| Middle-aged here - I've been in that situation as well.
|
| > What I mean to be well-intentioned advice can turn into a
| monologue.
|
| +1 - So well-intended ("So they don't make my stupid mistakes")
| but hard to really take in.
|
| > I feel this kind of tool could help me focus more on
| listening to the people I manage.
|
| Please, if you do, let me know if it helps.
|
| Also, if those are personal 1:1 you could always just call it
| out and ask them to give you live feedback tech-free (?)
| dingleberry420 wrote:
| gnicholas wrote:
| It's a Show HN, which means it's the first version. There is no
| reason to expect it won't be on other platforms later.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Does the microphone pick up both you, and the remote speakers? If
| so, how are you differentiating?
|
| Or does the microphone signal automatically cancel out the sounds
| coming out of the speakers?
| gscho wrote:
| Wanted to let you know HTTP requests are not automatically
| redirected to HTTPS.
|
| Love the idea for this, will be trying it out!
| interleave wrote:
| Hey gscho - Thank you so much for letting me know, have NO idea
| how that http:// got in there (?)
|
| Please don't tell me you're getting a browser error after the
| click (?)
|
| Do you know who/how can help me update that title?
| frankgrecojr wrote:
| This is awesome!
| antipaul wrote:
| Send this to my manager, ok? 90% hog at my 1-1s
| [deleted]
| throwaway9870 wrote:
| I _really_ wish a feature was added to online screen sharing that
| showed a pie chart of the time each participant was talking. I
| think it would help a lot of people who talk to much (probably
| myself included).
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Maybe you need a better meeting format? We go round robin with
| our issues to tackle, host limits each to about five minutes.
| c0balt wrote:
| Afaik BBB has this feature since at least last year. It shows a
| room admin the time each participant talked etc. While it was
| intended for classrooms, I.e. participation in online classes
| by students, it should cover the same aspect here.
| fodi wrote:
| Jitsi Meet [1] has voice and video chat, screen sharing and
| speaker stats (showing speaker time) out of the box.
|
| [1] https://meet.jit.si/
| interleave wrote:
| Totally agreed.
|
| Should be a standard feature imho.
| hbn wrote:
| You want this until it gets integrated into Microsoft Teams,
| management gets ahold of it, and now these pie charts are
| treated as an indication of your contributions to the company.
| Everyone is itching to talk as much as possible, dragging
| meetings on forever, a bunch of people saying absolutely
| nothing as insurance against when layoffs come around and a
| manager has to choose between 2 people roughly as valuable
| except... Hm... Bill contributes 3.8% less than Fred in
| meetings...
|
| Every time I get an email from Microsoft Viva telling me about
| my productivity last week, I can't help but feel that's the
| direction we're heading.
| pjbeam wrote:
| I am a manager and am afraid of a future like this. To echo
| your point I caution everyone to be careful what kind of data
| you wish for because you just might get it. Over a long
| enough timeline the probability goes to 1 that it will be
| misused by management.
| citilife wrote:
| Let me introduce you to: https://www.read.ai/
|
| Which tracks real-time talk time among everyone, but also a lot
| of other statistics, analytics, and transcripts.
|
| Works on meet, teams, zoom and webex. It just joins the
| meetings as an invitee (will automatically join any integrated
| calendars). So setup is nearly friction less.
|
| Actual objective is to reduce meetings when possible and
| improve meetings where people must attend.
| leokennis wrote:
| This would force me to contribute to useless meetings, while
| now I attend (look at him dutifully attending!) and in the
| meantime just do other work.
| themisto wrote:
| My favourite contributions to meetings are "Nothing to
| contribute that hasn't already been said". Like a breath of
| fresh air a light at the end of the tunnel.
| actfrench wrote:
| Love the focus on personal improvement rather than changing
| others. I'm going to use this when I pitch investors on zoom!
| interleave wrote:
| Yay for the focus - Far easier, sometimes, than changing others
| :)
|
| > I'm going to use this when I pitch investors on zoom!
|
| Much success!
|
| Tip: I would still recommend doing a dry-run since adding
| another signal (the timer) can lead to an unnecessary high
| self-awareness at first. That fades after the first-ever 10
| minutes (in my experience.)
| bredren wrote:
| Hey there, great app.
|
| By way of feedback:
|
| * The play icon with the strike through is not meaningful to me.
| I recommend a popover on hover to explain what this means. You
| probably thought about a log of different icons but might be
| worth polling for a few or letting the user pick one of a few a
| preference (At first I thought it "wasn't working")
|
| * It would be nice to be able to add meta to the session, i.e.
| "1:1 with joseph" that automatically gets timestamped for start
| and end. Then be able to show the graphs from a day of meetings
| stacked.
|
| * Analysis would be good. Being able to say how many others are
| in the meeting so it makes more sense when there are longer gaps.
|
| * Someone mentioned additional recommendations, that would be
| awesome if it had a guidance mode where I could fit a template
| over this thing and have it help keep the meeting on track. 5
| mins introductions / waiting for quorum, 5 mins agenda, 10 mins
| topic 1 etc.
|
| I realize the idea for this is to be a simple private app and its
| great at that. If necessary, I'd suggest offering something more
| complex that might require greater buy in privacy wise so it can
| do more.
|
| I'd still recommend requiring zero network requests as you've
| done on this version, even though the analytics might be useful.
|
| I use an network filter and manually allow connections from apps.
|
| Starting with this high level of privacy is how you get someone
| like me to be comfortable allowing your app to run on my machine.
| DennisMaHa wrote:
| Sounds like a great idea. Just an idea for another feature: a
| word counter. I tend to often use words like "um" when I'm
| nervous.
|
| Good look on your product :)
| samatman wrote:
| Advising people to rat out coworkers to HR is going to damage
| people and doesn't reflect well on you.
|
| HR is there to protect the company. They hire and they fire, and
| guess which one applies here. Could you maybe offer _talk to your
| coworker_ as an alternative to sending a link to your product?
| christiangenco wrote:
| Oh sweet! I had a similar idea in undergrad in ~2012[1]. I love
| the retroactive timeline so you can see the rough balance of who
| was talking when--this is a really useful graph.
|
| 1. https://christian.gen.co/conversation-monitor/
| irrational wrote:
| I have the opposite problem. According to my reviews, everyone
| likes me and I do great work. The only ding against me is that I
| never talk. I can go weeks without uttering a word in total
| comfort.
| lulzury wrote:
| It is hard to join when it feels like interrupting, and you
| might not want to do that due to differences in culture and/or
| personality. However, you have to consider joining in the
| conversation and sharing your thoughts. I noticed people can
| start making assumptions or making decisions for you, which is
| not fun.
| tvanantwerp wrote:
| I've been getting this feedback since grade school, and I'm
| still getting it now in my 30's.
|
| It's an extroverts' world and I just live in it...
| selykg wrote:
| The app could be used for that. It does work in the opposite,
| the lack of talking is shown in the chart as well. Not to say
| you need to arbitrarily start talking but, if this is something
| people ask you to do more and you're generally okay with it,
| then this could possibly help.
| anonu wrote:
| Maybe you should ask your colleagues to install this app?
| pimlottc wrote:
| As the page itself suggests, perhaps they should just talk
| about the issue with their colleagues first.
| rubslopes wrote:
| If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to the realization
| that you talk too much? Did your colleagues tell you that, or did
| you figured it out by yourself?
| interleave wrote:
| Hi rubslopes, good question.
|
| As a neurodiverse person, I've been acutely aware of my impact
| on conversations for the last two years (since diagnosis).
|
| And I guess I just started noticing when I 'flew off the rails'
| and think to myself "Ohhh... Shit. I just 'lost' everyone." And
| how embarrassed that made me feel.
|
| Then I read this article https://hbr.org/2015/06/how-to-know-
| if-you-talk-too-much which gave me some guidance and vocabulary
| that I didn't have until then.
|
| Then I started keeping tabs on my 'airtime' and I decided I had
| to build a simple feedback loop.
|
| Does this answer your question?
| rubslopes wrote:
| Yes, it does! Thank you.
| sandreas wrote:
| Nice, thank you for the post. Maybe you could think of
| integrating other aspects of meeting etiquette? I once wrote an
| article about this[1] and from time to time, I read it again to
| remember the details.
|
| [1]: https://pilabor.com/blog/2021/04/tips-and-tricks-for-
| meeting...
| bncy wrote:
| While it's not a bit problem for me, I've got a friend who really
| needs help with breaking his own monologs, so I'm sending him
| that
| interleave wrote:
| Bold.
|
| Please keep me/us in here updated!
| mdructor wrote:
| While I do occasionally encounter people rambling on about
| nothingburgers in meetings, I get more irked that the status quo
| at my workplace is people just sit there silently, contributing
| nothing in medium sized (6-12 people) meetings. It just seems
| like nobody wants to risk saying something that might be
| challenged or "seem dumb", as if they are all suffering from
| imposter syndrome.
|
| Recently a fellow developer was doing a demo of an automated UI
| testing suite and how it could apply to our product, and when it
| came time for questions or to show any sort of interest at all,
| its just _crickets_. I feel obligated to participate in
| situations like these, reach for questions or at least
| acknowledge other 's hard work, because nobody else seems to want
| to. For me its frustrating, I wish I were surrounded by people
| that are more willing to give their 2 cents, even if it means a
| little bit longer meeting, rather than staring at a sea of blank
| faces that don't bother to queue their mic for the entire
| meeting.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| > I feel obligated to participate in situations like these,
| reach for questions or at least acknowledge other's hard work
|
| There must be two (or more) schools of thought on this then. I
| am the opposite. It's painfully obvious when people are just
| asking questions for the sake of it. It's completely pointless
| and wasting everyones times. Another thing I see is where the
| Asker wants to make a point about something. They make their
| point and then tack on a question at the end.
| derefr wrote:
| Much of the time that I don't have anything to say in a
| meeting, it's because I don't think fast enough to have
| anything to contribute on the spot. If someone posted the
| content of the meeting as a text post in a Slack channel, I'd
| read it, stew on it, and then probably end up writing 2-6
| paragraphs of thoughts about it about five hours later. But you
| want those 2-6 paragraphs _right now_? I haven 't thought of
| them yet!
|
| And, IMHO, this is the main reason "async meetings" (e.g. email
| threads) are an improvement over sync meetings. Why put people
| on the spot, when you know you'll end up getting only a
| fraction of their mental capacity out of the deal? "War rooms"
| are for emergencies, not for creative thinking.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> Why put people on the spot, when you know you 'll end up
| getting only a fraction of their mental capacity out of the
| deal?_
|
| I don't get it either. In a meeting the other day I was asked
| about something I did six months ago. I responded with
| something to the effect of "Let me refresh my memory and I'll
| get back to you", but the boss laid on the pressure "well,
| why don't we try to figure it out now?" So we spent a lengthy
| amount of time talking about it and reached a conclusion.
|
| When the meeting was complete I spent a few minutes fully
| engrossing myself in that work, like I wanted to do
| originally, and realized that what we concluded was wrong.
| Following that realization, I got back to them with the
| correct response... What a waste of time that was. It's not
| like we are talking about how nice the weather is. Technical
| discussion requires a lot of information that usually isn't
| available in the moment.
|
| As a 20 year veteran to working from home, I have worked with
| teams who have embraced async communication in the past and
| it is amazing how much more productive it is. Now that
| everyone and their brother think they can work from home,
| without having built working from home skills, it's been
| interesting to say the least.
| [deleted]
| kerblang wrote:
| Ever try asking people questions? Like, "Bob? What do you think
| of this? Would you ever use it?" No need to make excuses, just
| do it.
|
| It's a leadership thing. Good leaders do that.
| aloisdg wrote:
| Could it be seen as bullying?
| selykg wrote:
| If you're asking an expert in the area of what the topic is
| about, or stakeholders, or those that maybe have that topic
| in their circle of competence, then why would it be
| considered bullying? You'd expect them to have an opinion
| or some sort of feedback.
|
| If you're asking someone who has literally nothing to do
| with that area of your work then, that's just kind of a
| weird situation. The key is tying the question to the area
| that is impacted by the person you're asking. It could be
| an open ended question and not even super specific.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| No, unless you're only doing it to one person or being a
| jerk about it.
| fruit2020 wrote:
| How so?
| vanattab wrote:
| Really asking a colleague his/her opinion on work related
| decisions is potential bullying now?
| akhmatova wrote:
| _Like, "Bob? What do you think of this? Would you ever use
| it?"_
|
| It's actually kind of obnoxious to call on people like that.
| Even if it may seem like a "leadership thing" -- which may
| explain why it seems such a favored technique among wannabe
| alpha manger types.
|
| I'm with the parent commenter: if people are in the flow (and
| give a shit), they'll definitely have something say (and your
| difficulty will be in getting them to keep it short). If
| they're not, and you're getting crickets -- it points to a
| deeper problem. That cannot be solved by, in effect, throwing
| chalk at people to get them to speak up.
| zucked wrote:
| My assumption is that if you're in the meeting, it has some
| adjacency to your work. This isn't about calling on the
| daydreaming kid in high school Spanish class who _has_ to
| be there to graduate. If you're in the meeting, it should
| be applicable to you and you should be ready to give some
| input; even saying something like "I'm not sure, need more
| info", or "don't have anything to add" is a valid and
| acceptable answer.
|
| If the meeting isn't germane to your work, why are you in
| it?
|
| I know people who do this because they're genuinely trying
| to get input from a broad set of people, some of whom will
| never speak unless they're asked directly. It doesn't have
| to be a mark of an alpha trying to beta everyone else.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >My assumption is that if you're in the meeting, it has
| some adjacency to your work.
|
| This assumption does not match up with my experience.
|
| >If the meeting isn't germane to your work, why are you
| in it?
|
| I personally have gotten pretty good about declining
| meetings, but plenty of people aren't. Besides, I've been
| occasionally asked by my direct manager to attend a
| meeting that it turns out I wasn't actually needed at or
| remotely interested in for my work.
|
| It would be nice to live in a world where meetings worked
| ideally and there weren't a bunch of people there wasting
| their own time, but that is sadly not the world we live
| in.
| zucked wrote:
| If it's not a meeting that you have any applicability to
| and someone asks for your input in the meeting, say so.
|
| "Sorry, I don't see myself using this
| product/service/team - not because it isn't good, it just
| isn't relevant to what I'm responsible for/in charge of".
|
| I feel like people treat meetings like this inescapable
| prison; once you're invited, you can never escape! It's
| bonkers. If you don't need to go to the meeting or don't
| have applicability... don't.
|
| I work for a Fortune-listed company -- exactly the kind
| of place where attendee bloat thrives and I've never once
| had any manager or supervisor aggressively push back on
| my declines if they are valid.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| But throwing chalk works. Don't get me wrong I wish all the
| people I value the opinion of or need to get adhesion from
| were full of confidence and perfectly fine speaking in
| public. It would make my life easier. Sadly they are not so
| I sometimes have to push them in the swimming pool.
| Hopefully at some point they will realise they are
| perfectly able to swim. In the meantime, well, tough love
| it's gonna be.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I think throwing chalk could just be gaming metrics. If
| people are interested it shows that what's happening is
| valuable, they benefit from what's being presented or
| have input that the presenter needs and they want to get
| that across. What the organization should care about is
| not that people ask questions or give feedback, it should
| care that time is being used well. That is we know this
| meeting isn't a waste of time because people are
| interested active participants and if people just sit
| quietly and wait for thing to be over maybe it wasn't
| that useful.
|
| When you force people to talk you are getting the metric
| (people asked questions) but because you are forcing it
| the metric becomes disconnected from what you actually
| care about - was this meeting a waste of time. You
| haven't actually improved things you've just obfuscated
| the problem.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It's a "leadership thing" because most good leaders have
| learned that it's useful to invite others to share their
| opinion before you do so yourself. Especially in more
| authority-style cultures, because you'll get better input
| that way. Then people aren't trying to just agree with
| whatever the person in a leadership role said.
| tqi wrote:
| I think there is a nuance here, where this is only useful if
| you do the work to tailor it to that person. ie "Bob, I know
| your team has had [X] concern in the past. From the [Y]
| perspective, does this seem useful to you?"
|
| The meta point being I don't think there are simple tricks or
| shortcuts to better participation.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Sure that's nice. But what the post above suggested works
| fine as well, just pick someone that hasn't said anything
| yet and ask what they think.
|
| Unless you invite totally irrelevant people to meetings,
| they should have some kind of view or feedback on whatever
| was just presented.
| donedealomg wrote:
| randomdata wrote:
| _> Recently a fellow developer was doing a demo of an automated
| UI testing suite and how it could apply to our product, and
| when it came time for questions or to show any sort of interest
| at all, its just crickets._
|
| Get back to me in a day or two after I've had time to read the
| documentation, play with it for a while, and, most importantly,
| think about it, and I might have some questions or comments. In
| the moment watching someone else dick around? No chance. Even
| if I wanted to participate beyond your expectations, my mind
| will be blank. Guaranteed.
|
| _> For me its frustrating_
|
| I too am frustrated by these types of meetings. An
| email/Slack/whatever message containing _" Hey! Check out this
| UI testing framework. Think it would work for us?"_ would
| provide just as much information as the presentation, while
| allowing more time to actually investigate to a necessary depth
| and come back with a constructive response.
|
| A followup meeting to discuss the merits of the technology
| _after_ everyone has had a chance to consider it aren 't so
| bad. When these are hosted I find people are much more engaged
| and interesting discussion comes of it. I have no qualms about
| being challenged or "seeming dumb" in these meetings.
|
| _> I wish I were surrounded by people that are more willing to
| give their 2 cents_
|
| Whereas I wish I were surrounded by more people who were
| interested in software engineering, not being an actor in
| amateur live theatre. Not that there is anything wrong with the
| latter, but time and place. Nobody wants to see your
| presentation at work. Sorry.
| galdosdi wrote:
| IMHO this effect is much worse in video meetings, partly
| because of the lag and just the whole experience where social
| cues are muted.
|
| In a real meeting, someone who has something to add will
| actually have different facial expressions that can be read by
| others. It just feels so much easier to gradually cut in
| without feeling like you might be talking over someone.
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| 6-12 people isn't a meeting, it's a presentation. At that size
| not everyone can contribute and most people probably don't need
| to be there. Meetings of that size are generally either "update
| the boss" meetings where everyone goes one by one and says what
| they have been doing. These are a terrible waste of everybody's
| time, EXCEPT for the boss and so can sometimes be justified. Or
| they are presentations from one person to the group. If you
| find there is no interaction or feedback from the rest of the
| people in your presentation, it is probably either a bad
| presentation or you are presenting to people who don't want or
| need to be there.
| pc86 wrote:
| I really think this is a backwards way to look at it. Work
| typically happens in an organization, and in organizations
| you don't always do the most optimal thing for yourself as an
| individual. I know everyone on HN would love it if they just
| got a steady stream of tickets into their inbox, never had a
| meeting about anything ever, and only interacted with git and
| HN. But that's not how the world works. Being attentive and
| engaged for 30 minutes while you get information that may
| very well make your job easier is not a big ask.
|
| I love love love working from home full-time but this is my
| chief complaint about it - before COVID (at least in the
| smaller places I worked), if you brought your laptop into a
| meeting, spent the entire time typing, and didn't engage
| anyone, you'd probably get either a warning or it would be
| your last meeting. It forced people to actually pay attention
| and not just pretend like they were, or at the very least
| risk getting called out for it.
|
| And while 12 is certainly pushing it, I've definitely been in
| productive working meetings with 6-8 people where all have
| been contributing.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| An alternative is to target your presentation at the people
| who will be in the room and prepare a bunch relevant
| questions/anecdotes/start a discussion with a couple of
| people you know will participate. As in--know your audience.
| This usually relaxes everyone and kicks off the interaction.
|
| My experience is that nobody wants to ask the first question
| because it sets the bar. But that doesn't mean nobody wants
| to participate.
| pachico wrote:
| And this is the moment in my life when I learned the word
| "nothingburger", which I will never forget.
|
| Thank you!!!
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| For engagement, one thing that works from me is telling people
| before the demo/presentation that you'd like them each to share
| their "feedback" afterwards. But, replace "feedback" with a
| very specific thing that makes sense for the situation.
|
| So, let's say the demo is on a specific feature, then you might
| preface the demo by saying this is the way that you decided to
| solve the problem, but you want to hear from everyone on how
| you could have done it differently.
|
| That gives people the cue to be actively engaged by putting
| them between the problem and the solution. It also gives them
| fair warning that you're going to call on them afterwords, so
| it gives them time to think of something that they won't feel
| embarrassed to say (some people need time to be creative, while
| others think about alternatives and questions on the fly).
|
| Either way, if people aren't speaking up then they might not be
| engaged. That doesn't mean they weren't listening, it just
| means they don't know why they are there. Maybe it really is a
| waste of their time, or maybe they just think it's a waste of
| their time because they don't understand the expectations or
| purpose.
|
| My dad was a successful executive and he gave me several pieces
| of advice when I joined the workforce. I think #2 fits in this
| case, "Expectations are to people, what oil is to an engine".
| obaid wrote:
| This is pretty neat. I am going to use it to monitor myself
| during the calls. I am curious about the tech behind this.
| Speaker identification locally on the machine seems like what's
| happening here. The nerd in me wants more tech deep dive :)
| interleave wrote:
| Let me know how it goes - Would love to hear your experience.
|
| It's a small but solid ML model that I've been working on. And
| I've got a 'headphones'-free feature on my personal roadmap,
| too!
| carimura wrote:
| IIRC UberConference used to send a report after the call listing
| the time each participant was talking. I always found that super
| insightful and entertaining.
| xfalcox wrote:
| I really need this for Linux. Sometime I get carried away...
| interleave wrote:
| Damn, I'm very sorry - I can't deliver that at this moment.
| aloisdg wrote:
| Same here. I am the kind of person who can get lost in a
| monologue tunnel quite easily.
| ghostbrainalpha wrote:
| Could we turn this app into wearable tech so that it can be used
| IRL for dating?
| hkon wrote:
| Why do you need it?
| thealienthing wrote:
| I love the concept of this app. Since I'm a very social person
| and tend to be the opposite of a wallflower during meetings, I'm
| constantly asking myself "having I been talking too long" or "am
| I dominating this discussion" and I feel very insecure about it.
| My only problem is I work in an embedded software space which
| means almost all of my meetings are in person. I wish I had
| something like this on my phone so I can check my phone or smart
| watch during in person meetings.
| interleave wrote:
| Thank you so much for sharing. I can relate.
|
| For in-person, maybe just tell your team that you're feeling
| insecure about this and would love to get their real-time
| feedback (?)
| higgins wrote:
| have you considered open sourcing it?
| themisto wrote:
| Love it. Simple and effective UI. In the past I've had the
| opposite problem occasionally where I think I'm taking up much
| more time than I am (a consequence of nervousness maybe) and this
| would be helpful for that too -- not just an indicator for when
| you talk too long, but also when for when you are still "in the
| green" to combat that nervousness induced timewarp.
| interleave wrote:
| Ohhhhh... Right.
|
| Just to mirror what I understand: You have experienced that,
| while talking, you thought "Oh, I've been talking for hours
| already. I should stop now." but in reality you haven't even
| scratched the, let's say, 30 second mark?
|
| Absolutely relevant - I hadn't even thought of that
| possibility. I'm actually thinking, the whole app could stay
| the same, just swap the green/red colors (?)
| themisto wrote:
| Yeah exactly! Thinking back, the time's I've felt this the
| most is during stressful interviews -- e.g. I'm asked a
| difficult question and part way through my answer my nerves
| say "You've been talking for ages, you've lost them" but in
| reality it's been a perfectly reasonable amount of time and
| if I listen to my nerves I risk cutting the answer short.
|
| I'd actually love a tool like this for interviews -- if had a
| mac or there was a linux build I'd definitely use this.
|
| Re: Colours -- If I were to use this for this use-case (next
| time work gives me a mac perhaps) I think the current green
| -> red arrangement is fine as-is, as it covers both use-cases
| (if red -> too long; if green -> still have time)
| interleave wrote:
| Thank you for sharing - I just spoke with my girlfriend who
| described the exact same thing. I had no idea.
|
| > if had a mac or there was a linux build I'd definitely
| use this.
|
| while I don't have resources now for a Linux build, where
| would I start in terms of window systems/dekstop
| environment (I don't even know if those are still the right
| terms - My last desktop box was running debian/sarge)
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You probably don't even have to swap the colors.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I wish behaviour like this was weeded out in the interview
| process. It is really damaging to teams and productivity and I
| would estimate most people won't try to fix it like OP has tried.
| shankr wrote:
| Yeah I feel like I am suffering with this with my teammates.
| How passive aggressive it would be if I shared this with my
| colleagues at work?
| interleave wrote:
| To answer your question without knowing any context: I would
| err on the side of it being received as rather passive
| aggressive.
|
| I do not recommend using the app (especially not without
| context) as a proxy for a difficult conversation that may
| have to happen.
|
| Since the question came up earlier, here is my full take on
| this situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097859
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Try talking with them instead. Use mediation, not a proxy.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| The colleague talking seems to be the problem :)
|
| GP is supposed to mediate while at work while their
| colleague is talking in circles?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Yes, that is literally how you solve interpersonal
| problems. You pull the person aside and discuss the
| problem.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| It was a small joke. That is a very simplistic view of
| the world. That approach may solve your problem but it
| also may not.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Depending on how you did it, you could be quite "aggressive"!
|
| "Dave, found the perfect app for you!" is aggressive. "Wow I
| might start using this app!" Is better.
| shankr wrote:
| > "Wow I might start using this app!" Is better.
|
| Yeah I thought about going this way.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Interviews are a very specific beast that is rarely duplicated
| in the work place besides when your butt is on the line in a
| conversation, which is still different.
| kerblang wrote:
| I imagine it would go like this: > Candidate
| answered all my questions thoroughly. Do not hire.
| burntwater wrote:
| If I weeded people out based on their talking too much in Zoom
| meetings, I would lose a fair number of my best people. I don't
| think this would make it into the top 20 red flags to look for
| in an interview.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what would your top red flags be?
| ryandrake wrote:
| To me, one of the most reliable ways to blow your interview
| is to just keep talking and talking, never providing any sort
| of re-entry window into the conversation for your
| interviewer. Double-bad if you are not actually answering the
| question, and just spouting your prepared speech. This
| happens so often that I think it must be something these
| unfortunate candidates are learning somewhere.
|
| Zoom makes this even worse than in person, as the software
| often won't even let you insert yourself into someone else's
| stream-of-consciousness word salad to help them course-
| correct.
| interleave wrote:
| Interesting perspective.
|
| I can only speak for myself of course: The issue only happens
| in online meetings and probably only with specific teams. So, I
| would have "slipped through", if your interview process is in-
| person.
|
| It starts with the awareness in my opinion. There are people
| who talk a lot and enjoy dominating the conversation. I wrote
| an extensive FAQ on why Unblah is not for them.
|
| Those who (like me) talk a lot but are painfully aware - I
| think aren't extremely damaging. I hope.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| You're someone who has recognised it and built a tool using
| the skills you have. I doubt you are damaging to a team at
| all! In fact, it's impressive.
| powerhour wrote:
| It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar
| with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard
| or impossible to identify during interviews.
|
| I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead
| following up in chat. As a bonus, this means there's a
| searchable record of the details, and thus is far more
| valuable than any in person or video meeting could ever be.
| interleave wrote:
| > It's probably more common as the person becomes more
| familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll
| make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews.
|
| Agreed.
|
| > I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings,
| instead following up in chat.
|
| How does that work? I mean, interpersonally?
| powerhour wrote:
| I've always been on small teams so I think it works ok,
| but I guess it could be an unfair burden for my
| coworkers. Maybe I should ask.
| rexpop wrote:
| Congratulations! You're committing the Fundamental Attribution
| Error[0]!
|
| Corporate meetings are traditionally structured to accommodate
| those who talk too much in meetings, but they could be
| structured differently. Deliberate facilitation, for example
| "taking stack"[1]," can help the puzzle pieces of panel of
| diverse personalities find their place in contributing
| maximally to the tasks at hand. Heck, sometimes it's as easy as
| setting expectations or as simple (albeit not necessarily easy)
| as establishing an environment of psychological safety[2] in
| which coworkers feel comfortable pushing back on antisocial
| behavior, eg asking "can you not interrupt me?"
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
|
| 1.
| https://techresources.shoestringcollective.com/collaborate/t...
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_safety
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Interesting. I had no idea there was a name for this
| behavior. Thanks for the link.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Did you mean to reply to me? I am not committing the
| Fundamental Attribution Error.
| nvr219 wrote:
| No way. Interviews are totally different conversations than
| team meetings. And I would go so far as to say that if people
| talking too much is "really damaging to teams and
| productivity", that is a failure of the team leadership, and
| they should work on that with the offending participants.
| Online meeting social skills are important but a lot of people
| who are really good at their job don't have those skills (yet!)
| gardenhedge wrote:
| In an agile/scrum context, what leadership is there in a team
| to do this? In scrum ceremonies, the scrum master should
| handle the direction of the meetings but lots of
| meetings/video calls happen outside these meetings.
| hamaluik wrote:
| Unfortunately I think I have the exact opposite problem (don't
| talk enough) but awesome work! And thank you for making and
| clarifying that it is private and 100% on device. More tools need
| to be like this!
| interleave wrote:
| Hey there! I empathize that not talking enough is just as
| difficult.
|
| I have had this on my radar as well and, in a way, you can
| totally use it to track your non-speaking as well.
|
| Here's an idea: What if there was a toggle for your scenario
| and the count-down of "other people talking" started when
| you're silent.
|
| The colors on timeline would be inverted, you'd see your
| "airtime" as a few gray dots.
|
| What do you think? Would this be helpful?
| hamaluik wrote:
| I think it could be, but without trying it I'd hesitate to
| say spend a bunch of time and energy implementing it. I also
| can't really help you as I don't have a mac to run it on.
| ComputerCat wrote:
| That's pretty neat. I really like how simple and concise the
| website you shared is! If you're screen-sharing during a meeting
| and have Unblah running, will the other people see it (or is it
| blocked for privacy the way an email notification is)?
| interleave wrote:
| Hey ComputerCat (coolest name btw.)! - Thank you for your
| question.
|
| - If you're screen-sharing your whole screen then: Yes. They'll
| see it running.
|
| I gather, you'd rather keep it private - Can you please share
| why you feel that way? (Happy to do a quick call if you're more
| comfortable there)
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I always thought Clubhouse and Twitter Spaces should have a
| feature like this!
|
| Or a way for the crowd to point out that you've been talking for
| too long, make your phone start buzzing or something
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-14 23:00 UTC)