> Too much time is spent attempting to communicate and as such, communication isn't actually happening.

This is where I think we have a different definition of communication.

> (i.e. we all spend way too much time in useless meetings where nothing happens and few people are any more informed than they were before)

Hence my clarification of:

  Most meetings are not about communication. They are usually 
  prescriptive in form and dictatorial in nature.

For example, if a project kick-off meeting consists of the highest ranking managers talking and everyone else having no contribution, listen to what they are saying; their "vision" is all that matters.

Another example is when product and/or engineer managers use "stand-ups" to ask each engineer the status of their deliverables. Listen to what they are saying; we micromanage and do not trust the team.

  Listening is a skill, one which is can be perfected if practiced.

▲ colechristensen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Standard philosophical problem, you're disagreeing about the definition of a word instead of the content of the message.

Step back and think if a dispute over the usage of the word is necessary or helpful in this context.

Amusingly this is where a lot of communication goes to die, loss of the big picture and discussion of how to use particular words.

Clearly you agree with OP about how time is wasted but you're insisting on using different language to express the same idea.

	▲	AdieuToLogic 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Standard philosophical problem, you're disagreeing about the definition of a word instead of the content of the message. Perhaps I should have said we have a different understanding or expectation of communication, instead of "definition." For this confusion I introduced, I apologize. > Clearly you agree with OP about how time is wasted but you're insisting on using different language to express the same idea. I do not. Again, as I previously self-quoted: `Most meetings are not about communication. They are usually prescriptive in form and dictatorial in nature.` OP postulated: `Or maybe we're spending too much time on communicating.` To which I disagreed. OP then opined: `If too much time is allocated then its hard to stay focused and there's always the next time that can be used to clarify.` Which is an indirect reference to meetings, not communication. Finally, OP concluded with: `Cut all the unnecessary meetings and only allocate the minimum viable time to communicate. Then everyone will be listening.` Which erroneously correlates meetings with listening. Your original response included: `... we all spend way too much time in useless meetings where nothing happens ...` Thus reinforcing said erroneous correlation. I blame myself for insufficiently expressing my thoughts on the difference between listening, which is implicit in communication and the topic of the article, and meetings, which are an assembly of people requiring only physical presence.