I think you shouldn't be too deflated about this. For many decisions, a sync session is necessary (whether it's a group review or a team call). The biggest benefit of a good writing culture is to turn five open-ended time-consuming group calls into a couple of well-written emails, and a final decision call with a clear agenda.

A decisive decision-session is great. An I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so.

I fantasize of just printing out my emails and reading them in a monotone

So tiring to get those responses. My old company was forced to go remote when the pandemic hit and the anxiety that the founder had about remote resulted in meetings about meetings to prepare everyone for the meetings.

Everyone has different learning styles, some conversations are definitely better in real-time and in-person but the default behavior being refusing to read an email longer than 3 sentences is rough.

This feels like an odd assumption to make about my comment. I don't think all meetings are a waste of time and I certainly don't think people with different work preferences than me are dullards.

My experience has been heavy on people who skip reading in favor of a meeting even when the reading is to provide historical context, summarize learnings, and present what we know about a situation. Not reading turns what should have been a productive, forward looking discussion into a meeting rehashing old information for the folks who didn't do their homework.

In my professional life, I've encountered far more people who prefer to have meetings that could have been emails than I have people who think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of time for a discussion but perhaps my use of "default behavior" was a bit strong.

I suspect the meeting-heavy cultures and aversion to reading I've encountered are largely driven by discomfort with writing, not reading which is where articles like this one could add some value.

> This feels like an odd assumption to make about my comment.

I mean, "refuse to read more than 3 sentences" (or "the TLDR of the business world" and "I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so" in others' comments in the same subthread) seems like unrealistic as well as incredibly uncharitable assumptions to make about people's general motivations for requesting followup calls. Especially if the subject matter of the original email was something as non-trivial as "a clear set of strategic choices"

Indeed, if it ends up actually taking 30 minutes to explain an email, it's obvious both that the other person is putting far more time and effort into the call than they would have done into scanning the email text, and that the email itself couldn't possibly have communicated all the information the caller [felt that they] needed to know in sufficient detail.

Which doesn't guarantee that the "quick call" was actually a productive use of time, or that the caller's questions are particularly good ones or that the caller couldn't have included followup questions in their reply, but if somebody can't think of any reason why colleagues receiving their email would call for clarification other than lack of interest in reading, there's a decent chance it's not [just] the colleagues with the communication problems. Even if the colleagues don't have additional information to add and seem fixated on something which point 11b was supposed to rule out.

Sure, as the number of people in a group meeting grows the probability someone hasn't read (or has read and has completely forgotten) the meeting prep notes approaches 1, but that's a separate issue from people receiving an email and calling for one-to-one clarification.

Have you entertained the possibility that we can tell, in said call, that the person who immediately requested the call needs the email explained to them (or asks multiple questions recapitulating the basics of the email) before they can contribute?

I'm not complaining about people asking questions to clarify or build on their understanding of the email. (Or even a lack of understanding; it's hard to build enough shared context to communicate well.)

You're the one here uncharitably projecting the assumption that we're punishing people for asking reasonable questions about something they made an effort to read.

I don't think it's uncharitable to assume that when someone writes that a generic type of request for synchronous communication is the "TLDR of the business world" which is "deflating" to receive after laying out a "clear set of strategic choices" in writing, their objection is to what they said they objected to (receiving an email asking for a call to discuss strategic choices after writing an email they believe to fully cover them), not the ignorant nature of specific questions not asked in that email.

But hey, maybe the brief text summary you wrote didn't encapsulate every nuance of your thoughts on the issue and any particularly bad habits specific colleagues of yours may have. I guess you don't want a call to clarify it ;-)

You keep leaving out a key word:

> The most-deflating response ... is the immediate TL;DR of the business world ...

So, here we are, having a text-call to clarify your comprehension of something you actually read (if uncharitably). Because I can tell you bothered to read it (and it bothered you enough to comment).

If I could tell you hadn't bothered to read it--then yes, I wouldn't want to clarify it.

Even if a response is so immediate the recipient can't possibly have had time to parse more than the topic, I'd still regard it as more than a little paranoid to conclude that the most likely purpose for anyone scheduling [more] time in future to speak to you on that specific matter is to avoid the effort of reading what you've written. Unless you're in the habit of mailing people the manual instead of the bullet points they asked for.

Ultimately most people who don't want to take the time to read someone's email properly don't reply to schedule a followup action that will take even more time, they hit mark as read and move on. People who genuinely value others opinions (or want to be seen to) are going to want a followup call anyway, so they might as well pre-arrange it before they've had chance to sit down and read every paragraph and check out your links. Especially if they're also in the habit of insta-replies to avoid "about the email sent 30 minutes ago..." chasers from other people. Sure, it's not impossible their reaction to receiving an email from you is completely irrational dislike of reading well-structured and clear prose, but then they're the one soliciting more explanation rather than being deflated about followup.

Thanks for explaining my life to me.

I am glad you know that I don't really have people schedule meetings right after getting an email in which I (and others) have to explain the content of said email before we can do anything productive.

Now that I know everyone who schedules a meeting to have someone explain an email to them actually read and understood the email it makes total sense that they ask questions that betray a complete lack of knowledge of anything beyond the general topic.

I would expect someone who read the email to be able to form a question that builds on or slices into some concern the email addressed, but now I know that feigning ignorance is just their way of showing how much they appreciate my time and opinions.

My life is materially improved. Thanks!

I assume that response wasn't intended to convince me I was entirely mistaken in considering the possibility that you (and others) would ever jump to the wrong conclusions about people's intentions, but I hope you found the experience of writing it cathartic anyway.

Of course it wasn't, because it's obvious you won't be convinced.

None of this was about intent. You projected that in. I can tell when someone didn't read the email. It isn't about people who are scheduling the decision session before reading the email but ultimately do it. It isn't about people who read the email but have questions. It's about people who didn't read the email.

But you won't accept that I regularly have and correctly understand the experience. You're determined to take an internet stranger's personal anecdotal experience and read it as something that must be false if it isn't globally true.