You want to convince them, but you won't meet them on their terms to do so? Maybe you should try having a conversation with them about it instead. Actually, a series of conversations. And be patient because influencing other people's base assumptions takes time.
Put yourself in their shoes, they want you to understand the benefits of in person communication, so they schedule meeting after meeting with you to talk about it. You are immediately fed up because you actually do already understand the benefits, and all these meetings are a waste of time.
Wouldn't you rather they demonstrate that they understand your point of view by writing up a document, or sharing an article, describing the benefits of in person communication that you could consider on your own time?
I'll also say, one of the big benefits of in person communication is getting real time feedback on body language and tone which tell you how the other person feels about what you are saying. If that's not something you care to do in this instance, when it's so important for you to gauge their opinions on it, is it any surprise that they think even more written communication will only put the team even more out of sync?
Thank you for your note, I'll keep it mind in case I try to get them to document things and / or read things.
The goal of my comment wasn't to document every attempt I made in the last months to convince them that writing some things down would be beneficial for the team. I do speak with them, we have video calls and we also talked about this topic multiple times.
I wanted to point out that it's a funny experience when you send a document to someone with the purpose of providing them a great overview, highlighting the benefits of these design docs... And nobody reads them.
I already understand the benefits of in person communication, I don't want to eradicate video calls, I'd just prefer to write our decisions down so that other people who were not part of a decision can read these docs and join later.
In the end, I understand that I'm trying to change the status quo and change the team culture, I know it's a hard thing to do, and I get it that it will take a while.
This, I think, is at the root of the good and bad of written conversation.
At its best, it allows the author to articulate their thoughts and share it widely for readers to consume and archive efficiently.
At its worst, the author writes an unreadable polemic without any thought of the audience. To the writer, their point is clear, obvious, and unarguable. To the reader, it’s a muddled, angry rant. The readers then type their own polemics in response, disingenuously cherry-picking and taking phrases out of context. And on it goes.
Not all written conversations look like this, but a lot do.
Put yourself in their shoes, they want you to understand the benefits of in person communication, so they schedule meeting after meeting with you to talk about it. You are immediately fed up because you actually do already understand the benefits, and all these meetings are a waste of time.
Wouldn't you rather they demonstrate that they understand your point of view by writing up a document, or sharing an article, describing the benefits of in person communication that you could consider on your own time?
I'll also say, one of the big benefits of in person communication is getting real time feedback on body language and tone which tell you how the other person feels about what you are saying. If that's not something you care to do in this instance, when it's so important for you to gauge their opinions on it, is it any surprise that they think even more written communication will only put the team even more out of sync?