Instead of "X needs to Y", how about "consider how Y might help X". The title is a more succinct, admittedly exaggerated, version of what the take-home message should be. It still has a point.
Yes, I agree, it does - if it works for you. if it doesn’t, it doesn’t have a point. But if you read comments on the post you’ll see a lot of folks saying “when I hire I always look at their ability to write” …. This tells me they are writers, writing works for them, this article speaks to them, and they assume it speaks to everyone and anyone it doesn’t can’t possibly be as productive. They assume because it makes them more productive and other modalities don’t that’s the way the world works. This is an incredibly common fallacy, not made of ill will, but it causes all sorts of pain to those who don’t match the hiring managers modality. I know I’m off topic a bit but I think it’s apropos - A good manager looks at the modalities not covered by the team and hires to fill the gaps, but most managers hire to match the modalities they’re familiar with in their own career.
> assume it speaks to everyone and anyone it doesn’t can’t possibly be as productive
Chill mate, it's just some person sharing their own experience and beliefs, they are not assuming anything. I don't know why you feel so opposed and attacked to an otherwise benign topic. The workplace interaction is dominantly biased towards speaking and face-to-face interaction. Even job interviews selects for the extroverts who can talk smoothly and has an outward pleasing personality. A dissenting opinion that argues for the unpopular or minority point of view seems perfectly healthy and natural.
In fact, I find your comment strange. Given the current dominant mode of communication, I would have expected that you would support the idea of writing more. Why? Because you clearly advocate for a balanced team that covers all modality (whatever that means), yet I don't see you pointing out the fact that people dominantly prefers and selects for verbal communication, subtly discriminating people who are more effective in writing or other alternative modes of communication. Instead, you get defensive and even argues against the minority view, clearly contradicting what you seem to be advocating for. What do you say about that?
