The author (OP?) positions the article to blame Slack as the root cause of productivity ills. However, multiple times it’s pointed out that Slack in and of itself isn’t the problem, but can simply exacerbate other root cause issues if misused.
> Although Slack is positioned as a productivity tool, it becomes counterproductive when misused.
The conclusion doesn’t follow the premise here. The author concludes that the root cause of counterproducitivty is misuse of the tool, not the tool itself. This doesn’t do anything to discredit the premise, as it’s easy to argue that any tool can be counterproductive/dangerous/etc. when misused.
> Organizations that find enough value in using Slack should introduce rules of engagement.
So the OP admits organizations can find value in using Slack, but should address the potential for misuse by introducing rules of engagement. Or rather, that rules of engagement should be put in place to prevent other root cause issues from being worsened by misuse of the tool. Again, the author is arguing that Slack isn’t the problem here.
The article may strike a chord with those who don’t like Slack, but the arguments presented are very sloppy. To me, this reads as a plug for a particular work style the OP finds themselves more productive under. The Slack attack is misplaced. The expectation of constant availability and immediate responses sound like cultural issues, exacerbated by the communication channels that Slack provides.
Comments
The author (OP?) positions the article to blame Slack as the root cause of productivity ills. However, multiple times it’s pointed out that Slack in and of itself isn’t the problem, but can simply exacerbate other root cause issues if misused.
The conclusion doesn’t follow the premise here. The author concludes that the root cause of counterproducitivty is misuse of the tool, not the tool itself. This doesn’t do anything to discredit the premise, as it’s easy to argue that any tool can be counterproductive/dangerous/etc. when misused.
So the OP admits organizations can find value in using Slack, but should address the potential for misuse by introducing rules of engagement. Or rather, that rules of engagement should be put in place to prevent other root cause issues from being worsened by misuse of the tool. Again, the author is arguing that Slack isn’t the problem here.
The article may strike a chord with those who don’t like Slack, but the arguments presented are very sloppy. To me, this reads as a plug for a particular work style the OP finds themselves more productive under. The Slack attack is misplaced. The expectation of constant availability and immediate responses sound like cultural issues, exacerbated by the communication channels that Slack provides.