Why Meeting-Centric Tools Fail at Async Work

[#1]

Async isn’t just in-sync work with a delay.

It’s a different rhythm entirely.

Trying to force meeting centric tools into async workflows doesn’t work because they rely on live participation, fast decisions, and one-time events.

But async work is continuous. Evolving.

It needs structure that’s flexible, not fixed.

The solution?

Tools built for async from day one not retrofitted afterward.

Ahem Rally 😅

[__ Jimi Wikman]

The questions should never be if we should use Asynchronous communication or Synchronous communication. The question should be when do we use what form and why. Both types have their value when used correctly and their downfall when used incorrectly.

As always you should define a communication plan and defined in what situations you should use what form of communication.

For example, I often see developers typing away in Slack to spend hours to solve situations that take literal minutes if they just call instead. This is because they did not realize that the asynchronous communication passed the point where it became ineffective.

Another example is where managers bring in everyone they possibly can into a meeting where a decision is expected, but as no one dares to take it, it becomes an implicit decision due to everyone being there. Using a synchronous communication to avoid responsibility is also a bad practice.

Language is also important, and it is even more important if you rely on asynchronous communication as you will miss a lot of body language, and you can not ask for clarification as easily either. This is why certain activities, like requirements, should never be done asynchronously as they require synchronous conversation as the end goal is understanding, not informing.

[Evan Fishman - Rally for Jira]

Totally agree with you @__ Jimi Wikman