I've encountered an environment where they used something similar it was ridiculous.
It turns passive aggressiveness to 11, there will always be rude people or people with poor conversations skills.
However they are usually toned down because there is a limit to how much you can interrupt someone before people tell you off, especially if there is a line manager or a supervisor present.
Now you get stuck with some douche constantly using the disagree sign to your face, and worse it can be maintained throughout your entire speech forcing you to yield or tell them to sod off which means you lose.
It also doesn't really help new or shy team members if they don't want to express an opinion they won't regardless if it's verbal or smoke signals.
Improving meetings can easily be done by having a meeting captain and a clear agenda.
I think the author comes across a bit doe-eyed (although this is perhaps just them taking a necessarily politic angle, given the venue of the article), but I also think what they're saying is generally true.
The vast majority of people aren't actively malicious. I'd go so far as to say the majority of people who would be described by their colleagues as "assholes" don't get up in the morning planning to be shitty. Typically, at least in my experience, it's the product of a vast intent / ability gap, usually in communications / EQ-type skills. They honestly think (generally, overestimate!) they're being constructive or "honest".
Honestly, some people can spend their lives immersed in reality, but they never seem to actually realize what's going on. I'm not sure whether to pity, or envy, the oblivious.
Yeah, I think that a key point here is that it is a way of keeping meetings on track with larger groups. Once you have a bunch of people who have strong opinions about the current topic of discussion, then you will get times when multiple people want to express themselves at the same time.
The person running the meeting may then have to step in and act as traffic cop, but they can only be reactive, after people start talking over each other or whatever. It can take a combination of a good chair and mutual goodwill to sort out the communication traffic jam. It's also rough on the people who aren't assertive, as the article says.
I find mechanisms like this to be silly and childish. We're all adults; part of life is learning how to communicate and how to be heard - more generally, how to function in a group. If you haven't figured out how to function properly to the point that you need a system of hand signals in meetings, then it is worth it to look at why your development has been stunted, perhaps with a therapist.
Similarly to that other commenter who didn't give a reason, I would also immediately start looking for work if my workplace implemented this.
This is what I was thinking[0]. There are loads of really expressive BSL signs that are more than appropriate for this kind of discussion. This is unsurprising as deaf people have group conversations too! As a note for those without experience of BSL, the signs are often dynamic and where consensus/voting is being expressed you usually hold the last part of the sign.
The occupy signs are deliberately chosen to be readable from really great distances and not being part of a larger signing system they are hard to expand upon.
Personally I think they might be more useful as a secondary bandwidth channel: you can now see, while you speak, if the majority needs the point clarified.
Another hand signal I've used in large groups is pointing at a person who has a hand up (wants to say something). It's a useful signal to the person speaking and can avoid people stepping on each other to speak next.
Ironically I've used exactly this to generally shut down interrupters I didn't want. Point at them when you can see they're about to interrupt and then keep talking. Indefinitely.
Likely it is too formal, extremely cumbersome, and implies everybody has a vote.
When I am talking to a team I want to know what they think, ideally as immediately as possible (which visual clues allow) but don't want to have to preplan anything.
Parliamentary procedure really isn't cumbersome; you can use as much or as little of it as you need. It's well-designed for organisations seeking to have discussion and reach decisions, even when the group may be ultimately unable to come to unanimity.
It would largely depend on the structure of the team as to what is optimal, however it is obvious that even though the h/w specialist should be involved in the discussion of the DB system we use on the device it is the data specialist who makes the decision.
Many decisions have many more involed parties than decisionmakers for good reason.
Good point. Well, FWIW parliamentary procedure can still handle non-voting parties, e.g. the non-voting representatives of U.S. territories in the U.S. Congress.
It's weird that they chose the English-speaking-world's hand gesture for "stop" as their "agree", especially when there's already "thumbs up" and "ok" out there.
Most of their hand signals are similar to hand signals used by the Occupy movement [1]. However, the Occupy movement "agree" signal involves wiggling the fingers [2]. It seems to have come from the ASL sign for "applause" [3].
The thumbs up gesture is an offensive gesture to Muslim cultures. Equivalent to the middle finger in US culture.
The "OK" circle with thumb and finger is offensive in Southern European countries (e.g. Greece), also somewhere around the same level of offence as the middle finger.
GDS might be part of the British civil service, but the UK is still a multicultural society with workers from all over the World here, including I believe, GDS. That might change in the next two years, but right now, it's who we are (and I personally hope it's who we remain in years to come).
It's not "political correctness gone mad" to choose a hand signal that isn't offensive over one that a third of the room might find offensive. It's just polite.
No body said "political correctness gone mad", you are projecting.
What was said was "It's weird that they chose the English-speaking-world's hand gesture for "stop" as their "agree"" - which it is, I see two hands palm up at me and I see "stop".
As a native English speaker, if I'm talking, and someone does that two-palms-gesture, it's mildly offensive. It means "just stop. I'm not really listening to you anymore". On the other hand, if I've agreed to use that gesture with my colleagues to mean something else, it's not offensive, because I'm not a moron. My problem with that gesture is repurposing a gesture that already means the opposite - it introduces an element of ambiguity.
It is also unbelievably patronising to suggest muslims or greeks that work in the article's team and are trained in this unusual form of comms, that they don't have the quite low bar of maturity required to not be offended by a gesture that is offensive in their orginating culture.
As for suggestions of "PC gone mad", that is 100% your injection. I'm actually quite in favour of PC, as really it's just the extremists of that movement who are fools. As Dara O'Briain said to a heckler who shouted out "Fuck PC!": "Yes, fuck those PC people and their manners".
Frankly, offense should only be taken from a person's intent, not from words or specific gestures (negligence can also be a form of intent here). Compare the phrases "He's a slimy, despicable excuse for a human being" and "He's a lovable old cunt". Which one of those means the speaker holds the subject in contempt? If you're taking offense at a phrase or hand gesture regardless of intent, location, culture, or context, then you're a moron and shouldn't be pandered to[1][2]. People that try to make the world safe for those kind of idiots are those PC extremists mentioned earlier.
[1] inject video of Mr Rogers 'flipping the bird' here - only a moron would be offended given the context
[2] or for another example, an anglo visiting a tribe where the women don't cover their breasts - we would think them an idiot if that anglo took offense
Polite doesn't mean creating cognitive dissonance. "Point of order" looks like the word for vagina. And agree looks like the word for stop.
Must one run their hand signals through a worldwide hand signals dictionary to assure non-offense? That's ridiculous, they're a British government agency and thus British is the only culture they should consider. Words and gestures mean different things in different places, if some Greek Muslim working for the U.K. Government is offended, that's too bad. They ought to get over it.
In scuba diving, using the thumb and index finger circle to indicate OK/understood while under water is used worldwide. Communication is contextual and it's more important that there is a shared and understood convention than universal cultural awareness.
Suggests the author needs more experience of the workplace.