There are two items on that list that would raise hackles with me: email, and repeating.
I'd also hold the boss to their claims of openness and consistency. There are a number of promises made in that document which had damned well better be held to, or this is a recipe for disaster.
Email is very effective. If used effectively. There are reasons large collaborative online projects communicate primarily through email. It's good for surfacing issues, and particularly for keeping a record of what was said (in some businesses, this can be a liability, and there's a lot of aversion to it).
The problems arise when:
- Nobody owns a conclusion. Discussions can be interminable. If a conclusion is reached, it needs to be noted. If not you end up with the online interminable debate -- there's no judge on Usenet/Slashdot/HN to end the debate.
- Conventional enterprise email tools hinder discussion. There's a reason "geek style" quoting, trimming, and threaded mail agents are used. GMail gets close. MS Outlook, Lotus Notes, and the like, are horrendous.
- I've had more than one boss who was convinced of their own brilliance, but who was in fact very vague and very inconsistent. Nailing down requirements/expectations, or communicating bad news was at best problematic. In the context of an expectations list such as this, that won't work.
On repeating things.
Every boss I've had, from Mom on down, has had to repeat things, and often hasn't liked it.
Deal with it.
Management means managing. If you're repeating yourself (often and for most of your subordinates), there's a problem with your communication style, your expectations, change control, task/project tracking, or some mix of the above.
People work on a basis of repeated social encounters. There are messages which are so repetitive that we paste them on labels, placards, loop them in rail/airport/bus system announcements, etc. And that's the simple stuff. If you're a manager, you'd best get used to that too, and find ways of dealing with this that 1) minimize the requirement and 2) allow you to be repetitive without driving yourself nuts or dulling the message.
Brevity. It works for simple use cases. Complex ideas require a more nuanced exposition.
Otherwise -- yes, there are a few good points in there.
Yes — about repeating, I am extemely scrupulous about making sure notes are taken. Actually, I often go far beyond notes, when appropriate. I may not have an eidetic memory, but I+computer does.
But people who say they hate repeating themselves annoy me greatly. They often repeat mistakes, which is a far worse problem. As you point out, they scapegoat others for constantly needing to repeat themselves.
Oh, thank you. I was wondering about the email thing myself. I generally prefer to have complex discussions over email, because I find the medium much more concise and with the added benefit of a written account of what was/was not agreed upon.
Face-to-face meetings are good for brain storming and being creative, but for decision making, I prefer email.
Email can be a hazard when you're in the fast-and-furious discussion phase.
Then it's useful to have a F2F meeting (or conference, or whatever), with someone designated to take notes and post a summary. If there are conclusions drawn in the meeting -- and the meeting should be specifically scoped to do:
1. Reach a conclusion, or
2. Identify what additional information is required to accomplish 1, or
3. Determine that the problem is intractable
.. then those conclusions must be nailed down in writing immediately after. Bury your hatchets and grudges and get stuff done.
I'd also hold the boss to their claims of openness and consistency. There are a number of promises made in that document which had damned well better be held to, or this is a recipe for disaster.
Email is very effective. If used effectively. There are reasons large collaborative online projects communicate primarily through email. It's good for surfacing issues, and particularly for keeping a record of what was said (in some businesses, this can be a liability, and there's a lot of aversion to it).
The problems arise when: - Nobody owns a conclusion. Discussions can be interminable. If a conclusion is reached, it needs to be noted. If not you end up with the online interminable debate -- there's no judge on Usenet/Slashdot/HN to end the debate.
- Conventional enterprise email tools hinder discussion. There's a reason "geek style" quoting, trimming, and threaded mail agents are used. GMail gets close. MS Outlook, Lotus Notes, and the like, are horrendous.
- I've had more than one boss who was convinced of their own brilliance, but who was in fact very vague and very inconsistent. Nailing down requirements/expectations, or communicating bad news was at best problematic. In the context of an expectations list such as this, that won't work.
On repeating things.
Every boss I've had, from Mom on down, has had to repeat things, and often hasn't liked it.
Deal with it.
Management means managing. If you're repeating yourself (often and for most of your subordinates), there's a problem with your communication style, your expectations, change control, task/project tracking, or some mix of the above.
People work on a basis of repeated social encounters. There are messages which are so repetitive that we paste them on labels, placards, loop them in rail/airport/bus system announcements, etc. And that's the simple stuff. If you're a manager, you'd best get used to that too, and find ways of dealing with this that 1) minimize the requirement and 2) allow you to be repetitive without driving yourself nuts or dulling the message.
Brevity. It works for simple use cases. Complex ideas require a more nuanced exposition.
Otherwise -- yes, there are a few good points in there.