Yes, if you have a team, the team should discuss work progress, discoveries and problems in a shared space that is accessible by other team members. If conversations about the work itself happen in silos because someone is not comfortable, you're doing it wrong because you're fixing the symptom instead of the cause.
What if the “cause” is deeper than your influence can reach? What if addressing the “cause” is a multi-year endeavor?
Do you send the idiosyncratic team member home and forgo what they’d otherwise bring, or do you adapt your process to make the most of the team you have?
It’s great to have ideals to reference, but you miss a lot when you hold onto them as rules.
Indeed. It's just like when people say, "Well, if that's your problem, you need to fix your hiring process." It's amazing how many theories require perfect hiring.
You really taking a strawman extreme example I've never met in 30 years as a counter-point to "discussion should be in public as much as possible"? The article even mention that /some/ communication can still be private, but the default rule is to be public.
Your counter-point is "there are a miniscule contigent of people who can't function at all in a team". Weak.
It's not my job to fix someone else's dysfunction. It's their job to speak in public about work.
Being uncomfortable isn't a veto.
All your criticism is just framing. It presupposes pathological work practices are actually just personal quirks. If you can't type a question in a slack with 20 members you are basically useless.
