If you’re going to have a call with someone, ask them when would be convenient, and make an agenda before you talk.
I default to sending people a link to my calendly. (And sometimes—especially if there are major timezone clashes—I also say that the person is welcome to suggest times earlier/later than the times in my calendly.) This gives them a lot of room to choose whatever time is best for them, and seems less time-consuming for both me and the other person than exchanging some scheduling messages.
In cases where people reach out to me rather than the other way around, I also prefer using a calendly link (so I send mine if they didn’t send theirs first).
I guess it’s possible some people would find being sent a calendly link off-putting for some reason, but I haven’t seen indications of that so far.
Two actions I plan to take as a result of this post
When seeking input, make more of an effort to figure out what I most need help on and explicitly flag that, rather than just making a more generalised request for input.
I think I used to be good at this, but have recently slipped for some reason, so this post was a helpful prompt to get back on track.
When following up with people, briefly explain how people’s input was useful.
I think I do consistently follow-up, express gratitude, and tell people that their input was useful. But I don’t think I’d really thought about how it could be good to tell them how their input was useful, and consequently I think I haven’t done that enough.
One thing I’d slightly push back on
Try to make the conversation concise, and to avoid going over the time allocated. I really appreciate when people do this when I’m talking to them, because it means I can focus on thinking through the ideas rather than also making sure that we’re sticking to the agenda and get to everything.
I think it makes sense for this to be the default way one approaches conversations in which one is seeking advice. But I think a decent portion of advice-givers would either be ok with or actually prefer a more loose / lengthy / free-wheeling / non-regimented conversation.
There have been a few times when I’ve arranged to talk to someone I perceived as very busy and important, and so I’ve tried to be very conscious of their time and give them opportunities to wrap things up, but they repeatedly opted to keep talking for a surprisingly long time. And they seemed genuinely happy with this, and I ended up getting a lot of extra value out of that extra time.
So I think it’s probably good to be open to signs that one’s conversation partner is ok with or prefers a longer conversation, even if one shouldn’t assume they are.
I guess it’s possible some people would find being sent a calendly link off-putting for some reason, but I haven’t seen indications of that so far.
I actually find it extremely annoying, though I don’t know why and I don’t particularly endorse this reaction. There have been cases where people have sent me calendlies with zero slots available, or failed to show up for a call I scheduled using it, but I don’t think this is the reason. I have actually missed at least one call that should have taken place just because I found calendly so irrationally aversive.
Huh, this is great to know. Personally, I’m the opposite, I find it annoying when people ask to meet and don’t include a calendly link or similar, I am slightly annoyed by the time it takes to write a reply email and generate a calendar invite, and the often greater overall back-and-forth and attention drain from having the issue linger.
Curious how anti-Calendly people feel about the “include a calendly link + ask people to send timeslots if they prefer” strategy.
My feelings are both that it’s a great app and yet sometimes I’m irritated when the other person sends me theirs.
If I introspect on the times when I feel the irritation, I notice I feel like they are shirking some work. Previously we were working together to have a meeting, but now I’m doing the work to have a meeting with the other person, where it’s my job and not theirs to make it happen.
I think I expect some of of the following asymmetries in responsibility to happen with a much higher frequency than with old-fashioned-coordination:
I will book a time, then in a few days they will tell me actually the time doesn’t work for them and I should pick again (this is a world where I had made plans around the meeting time and they hadn’t)
I will book a time, and just before the meeting they will email to say they hadn’t realised when I’d booked it and actually they can’t make it and need to reschedule, and they will feel this is calendly’s fault far more than theirs
I will book a time, and they won’t show up or will show up late and feel that they don’t hold much responsibility for this, thinking of it as a ‘technical failure’ on behalf of calendly.
All of these are quite irritating and feel like I’m the one holding my schedule open for them, right up until it turns out they can’t make it.
I think I might be happier if there was an explicit and expected part of the process where the other person confirms they are aware of the meeting and will show up, either by emailing to say “I’ll see you at <time>!” or if they have to click “going” to the calendar invitation and I would get a notification saying “They confirmed”, and only then was it ‘officially happening’.
Having written this out, I may start pinging people for confirmation after filling out their calendlys...
Thanks for writing these out. I don’t remember people having cancelled calendly times on me, so I assume it hasn’t happened at a higher rate than other types of meetings. Really useful to know that that’s typically the case, since it understandably puts people off them.
I don’t want to claim it happens regularly, but enough that it’s become salient to me that I may spend all this time planning for and around the meeting and then have it be wasted effort, such that there’s some consistent irritation cost to me interacting with calendlys.
But now that I’ve put in to words some of my concerns, I think I’ll generally like interacting with calendly more now, as I’ll notice when I’m feeling this particular worry and more pro-actively deal with it. As I said, I think it’s a great tool and I’m glad it exists.
I think I might be happier if there was an explicit and expected part of the process where the other person confirms they are aware of the meeting and will show up, either by emailing to say “I’ll see you at <time>!” or if they have to click “going” to the calendar invitation and I would get a notification saying “They confirmed”, and only then was it ‘officially happening’.
Yeah, even as an unabashed Calendly-lover I think these things would definitely be improvements. I’ve thought before that it seems weird that the person whose calendly it is is set to “going” by default, which means the person who booked the time will by default only know that the other person received an email, not that they saw it or plan to be there.
For this reason, when people book a slot with me, I try to always send a message like “I’ll see you at <time>!” But I think it’d be better to have a stronger norm around this, and/or have the person not be set to “going” until they actively click “going”.
(It also looks like your comment has gotten a downvote, which seems surprising to me. My small plug for calendly has turned into a much larger and spicier thread than expected.)
Don’t feel great about that, for the same reasons as before—it prioritizes your comfort and schedule over mine, which is kind of rude if you’re asking me for a favour.
But like other people, I don’t necessarily endorse these feelings, and they’re not super strong. It’s fine for people to keep sending me calendly links.
I find it off-putting though I don’t endorse my reaction and overall think the time savings mean I’m personally net better off when other people use it.
I think for me, it’s about taking something that used to be a normal human interaction and automating it instead. Feels unfriendly somehow. Maybe that’s a status thing?
Very similar here. I wouldn’t quite say unfriendly/status thing, but like a social interaction with a friend got sucked into commercialized business mode (“capitalism ate your friendships!”—definitely not my endorsed reaction, but feels kind of true).
I would also like to come out of the woodwork as someone who finds Calendly vaguely annoying, for reasons that are entirely opaque to me.
(Although it’s also unambiguously more convenient for me when people send me Calendly links—and, given the choice, I think I’d mostly like people to keep doing this.)
Yeah, I think roughly that sort of message is what I’ll use from now on, as a result of the (rather unexpected!) data this thread has provided. It still seems to me that Calendly (at least given my flexible schedule) will very likely tend to save both parties time and effectively give them more choice over timings, but I’ll provide some particular option alongside the link from now on.
I think this would also help in cases where the person I’m talking to would feel it’s easier to make a decision if one or two options are singled out for them (e.g. Lukas, based on his comment).
I find calendly particularly annoying when my interlocutor doesn’t seem to make any effort to consider my schedule. For example, if they’re asking me for a favour or some feedback, I say okay, and then instead of asking when’s good for me they say “Great! Here’s my calendly!”
These comments are all useful data for me, but I also find them somewhat confusing. Are you referring to cases where the person’s calendly is quite full, so you’re forced into a narrow range of options?
My calendly is usually quite empty, as my schedule is quite flexible. So I’d hope this comes across to people as being very considerate of their schedule, since they can choose from a very wide range of times and dates.
Or maybe you find it annoying either way, and it’s more like getting sent a calendly link just feelsless considerate of your schedule than being explicitly asked when’s good for you?
I think it’s a bit of both. I’m particularly annoyed if someone asks me for a favour and then send a calendly with only a couple slots, or slots that don’t make sense in my time zone. I’m very very annoyed if I say “How’s Monday at 8?” and they say, “I think that should be fine, can you check my Calendly?”
But overall I think it’s a status thing. Instead of starting from my preferences, I’m put in the position of picking which of their preferences is the least inconvenient for me. It’s perfectly functional, but I don’t get to be the star.
I’m particularly annoyed if someone asks me for a favour and then send a calendly with only a couple slots, or slots that don’t make sense in my time zone. I’m very very annoyed if I say “How’s Monday at 8?” and they say, “I think that should be fine, can you check my Calendly?”
Yeah, I think I’d find both of those annoying as well, and the second especially—the second just seems an entirely unnecessary use of calendly anyway, and does seem to fairly strongly signal “Your time is worth less than mine”.
Instead of starting from my preferences, I’m put in the position of picking which of their preferences is the least inconvenient for me. It’s perfectly functional, but I don’t get to be the star.
Interesting. I guess I’d assumed people would instead see it more like me offering them a massive menu that they can pick from with ease and at their convenience. (Well, not really like that, but something more like that than like them having to work around me in a way that puts me first.)
I’ve found it difficult to find a clear takeaway from this discussion. I think relevant points are here:
Making each other feel respected
Finding a time that actually works well for both (i.e. not overly inconvenient times)
Saving time scheduling meetings
Some of the suggestions emphasize #1 at the expense of #3 (and possibly #2). E.g., if I send my Calendly and make concrete suggestions, that removes the time-saving aspects because I have to check my calendar and there’s a risk of double-booking (or I have to hold the slots if I want to prevent that).
My current guess is that the following works best: Send the Calendly link, click it yourself briefly to ensure it has a reasonable amount of options in the recipient’s time zone available, and tell the recipient “feel free to just suggest whichever times work best for you.”
Not sure that works for those who are most skeptical/unhappy about Calendly.
For me it’s the feeling of too many options, that some options may be less convenient for the other person than they initially would think, and that I have to try to understand this interface (IT aversion) instead of replying normally (even just clicking on the link feels annoying).
I think that for many , it’s primarily the act of sending a calendly link that is off-putting (for social, potentially status-related, reasons), rather than the experience of interacting with the software. My hunch is that people don’t have the same aversion to, e.g. Doodle, which is more symmetric (it’s not that one person sends their preferences to the other, but everyone lists their preferences). (But you may be different.)
I personally have this tech aversion to Calendly and Doodle specifically, but not to other, similar tools that I find more user-friendly, such as When2Meet. The main reason is that I would much prefer a “week view” rather than having to click on each date to reveal the available slots. That said, Calendly is still my most preferred option for scheduling meetings.
Huh, I deeply love Calendly and use it for basically everything in my social life. So I’ve found this thread super interesting to see so many different perspectives on it, and how to minimise annoyance to those people. Thanks for starting the thread! (And this is making me paranoid about how many of my friends I piss off by using Calendly...)
Thinking a bit about why I love Calendly so much, a big draw for me is that scheduling takes quite a lot of mental energy from me. Especially suggesting specific times, or saying I can’t make specific times someone else suggested. I think it often feels like I’m being difficult or inconvenient, which I find super aversive, especially if both of us are fairly busy. And Calendly cuts all of that out, which makes me much more willing to organise things!
I think this post is great.
One thing I’d add
I default to sending people a link to my calendly. (And sometimes—especially if there are major timezone clashes—I also say that the person is welcome to suggest times earlier/later than the times in my calendly.) This gives them a lot of room to choose whatever time is best for them, and seems less time-consuming for both me and the other person than exchanging some scheduling messages.
In cases where people reach out to me rather than the other way around, I also prefer using a calendly link (so I send mine if they didn’t send theirs first).
I guess it’s possible some people would find being sent a calendly link off-putting for some reason, but I haven’t seen indications of that so far.
Two actions I plan to take as a result of this post
When seeking input, make more of an effort to figure out what I most need help on and explicitly flag that, rather than just making a more generalised request for input.
I think I used to be good at this, but have recently slipped for some reason, so this post was a helpful prompt to get back on track.
When following up with people, briefly explain how people’s input was useful.
I think I do consistently follow-up, express gratitude, and tell people that their input was useful. But I don’t think I’d really thought about how it could be good to tell them how their input was useful, and consequently I think I haven’t done that enough.
One thing I’d slightly push back on
I think it makes sense for this to be the default way one approaches conversations in which one is seeking advice. But I think a decent portion of advice-givers would either be ok with or actually prefer a more loose / lengthy / free-wheeling / non-regimented conversation.
There have been a few times when I’ve arranged to talk to someone I perceived as very busy and important, and so I’ve tried to be very conscious of their time and give them opportunities to wrap things up, but they repeatedly opted to keep talking for a surprisingly long time. And they seemed genuinely happy with this, and I ended up getting a lot of extra value out of that extra time.
So I think it’s probably good to be open to signs that one’s conversation partner is ok with or prefers a longer conversation, even if one shouldn’t assume they are.
I actually find it extremely annoying, though I don’t know why and I don’t particularly endorse this reaction. There have been cases where people have sent me calendlies with zero slots available, or failed to show up for a call I scheduled using it, but I don’t think this is the reason. I have actually missed at least one call that should have taken place just because I found calendly so irrationally aversive.
Huh, this is great to know. Personally, I’m the opposite, I find it annoying when people ask to meet and don’t include a calendly link or similar, I am slightly annoyed by the time it takes to write a reply email and generate a calendar invite, and the often greater overall back-and-forth and attention drain from having the issue linger.
Curious how anti-Calendly people feel about the “include a calendly link + ask people to send timeslots if they prefer” strategy.
My feelings are both that it’s a great app and yet sometimes I’m irritated when the other person sends me theirs.
If I introspect on the times when I feel the irritation, I notice I feel like they are shirking some work. Previously we were working together to have a meeting, but now I’m doing the work to have a meeting with the other person, where it’s my job and not theirs to make it happen.
I think I expect some of of the following asymmetries in responsibility to happen with a much higher frequency than with old-fashioned-coordination:
I will book a time, then in a few days they will tell me actually the time doesn’t work for them and I should pick again (this is a world where I had made plans around the meeting time and they hadn’t)
I will book a time, and just before the meeting they will email to say they hadn’t realised when I’d booked it and actually they can’t make it and need to reschedule, and they will feel this is calendly’s fault far more than theirs
I will book a time, and they won’t show up or will show up late and feel that they don’t hold much responsibility for this, thinking of it as a ‘technical failure’ on behalf of calendly.
All of these are quite irritating and feel like I’m the one holding my schedule open for them, right up until it turns out they can’t make it.
I think I might be happier if there was an explicit and expected part of the process where the other person confirms they are aware of the meeting and will show up, either by emailing to say “I’ll see you at <time>!” or if they have to click “going” to the calendar invitation and I would get a notification saying “They confirmed”, and only then was it ‘officially happening’.
Having written this out, I may start pinging people for confirmation after filling out their calendlys...
Thanks for writing these out. I don’t remember people having cancelled calendly times on me, so I assume it hasn’t happened at a higher rate than other types of meetings. Really useful to know that that’s typically the case, since it understandably puts people off them.
You’re welcome :)
I don’t want to claim it happens regularly, but enough that it’s become salient to me that I may spend all this time planning for and around the meeting and then have it be wasted effort, such that there’s some consistent irritation cost to me interacting with calendlys.
But now that I’ve put in to words some of my concerns, I think I’ll generally like interacting with calendly more now, as I’ll notice when I’m feeling this particular worry and more pro-actively deal with it. As I said, I think it’s a great tool and I’m glad it exists.
Oh, actually that makes me feel better too!
Yeah, even as an unabashed Calendly-lover I think these things would definitely be improvements. I’ve thought before that it seems weird that the person whose calendly it is is set to “going” by default, which means the person who booked the time will by default only know that the other person received an email, not that they saw it or plan to be there.
For this reason, when people book a slot with me, I try to always send a message like “I’ll see you at <time>!” But I think it’d be better to have a stronger norm around this, and/or have the person not be set to “going” until they actively click “going”.
(It also looks like your comment has gotten a downvote, which seems surprising to me. My small plug for calendly has turned into a much larger and spicier thread than expected.)
Don’t feel great about that, for the same reasons as before—it prioritizes your comfort and schedule over mine, which is kind of rude if you’re asking me for a favour.
But like other people, I don’t necessarily endorse these feelings, and they’re not super strong. It’s fine for people to keep sending me calendly links.
I find it off-putting though I don’t endorse my reaction and overall think the time savings mean I’m personally net better off when other people use it.
I think for me, it’s about taking something that used to be a normal human interaction and automating it instead. Feels unfriendly somehow. Maybe that’s a status thing?
Very similar here. I wouldn’t quite say unfriendly/status thing, but like a social interaction with a friend got sucked into commercialized business mode (“capitalism ate your friendships!”—definitely not my endorsed reaction, but feels kind of true).
I would also like to come out of the woodwork as someone who finds Calendly vaguely annoying, for reasons that are entirely opaque to me.
(Although it’s also unambiguously more convenient for me when people send me Calendly links—and, given the choice, I think I’d mostly like people to keep doing this.)
Maybe one option would be to both send the Calendly and write a more standard email? E.g.:
“When would suit you? How about Tuesday 3pm or Wednesday 4pm? Alternatively, you could check my Calendly, if you prefer.”
Maybe some find that overly roundabout.
Yeah, I think roughly that sort of message is what I’ll use from now on, as a result of the (rather unexpected!) data this thread has provided. It still seems to me that Calendly (at least given my flexible schedule) will very likely tend to save both parties time and effectively give them more choice over timings, but I’ll provide some particular option alongside the link from now on.
I think this would also help in cases where the person I’m talking to would feel it’s easier to make a decision if one or two options are singled out for them (e.g. Lukas, based on his comment).
I find calendly particularly annoying when my interlocutor doesn’t seem to make any effort to consider my schedule. For example, if they’re asking me for a favour or some feedback, I say okay, and then instead of asking when’s good for me they say “Great! Here’s my calendly!”
It mostly seems like a status/deference thing.
These comments are all useful data for me, but I also find them somewhat confusing. Are you referring to cases where the person’s calendly is quite full, so you’re forced into a narrow range of options?
My calendly is usually quite empty, as my schedule is quite flexible. So I’d hope this comes across to people as being very considerate of their schedule, since they can choose from a very wide range of times and dates.
Or maybe you find it annoying either way, and it’s more like getting sent a calendly link just feels less considerate of your schedule than being explicitly asked when’s good for you?
I think it’s a bit of both. I’m particularly annoyed if someone asks me for a favour and then send a calendly with only a couple slots, or slots that don’t make sense in my time zone. I’m very very annoyed if I say “How’s Monday at 8?” and they say, “I think that should be fine, can you check my Calendly?”
But overall I think it’s a status thing. Instead of starting from my preferences, I’m put in the position of picking which of their preferences is the least inconvenient for me. It’s perfectly functional, but I don’t get to be the star.
Yeah, I think I’d find both of those annoying as well, and the second especially—the second just seems an entirely unnecessary use of calendly anyway, and does seem to fairly strongly signal “Your time is worth less than mine”.
Interesting. I guess I’d assumed people would instead see it more like me offering them a massive menu that they can pick from with ease and at their convenience. (Well, not really like that, but something more like that than like them having to work around me in a way that puts me first.)
Stefan wrote in another comment:
Do you think that that option would alleviate this feeling for you?
Most likely! I guess we’ll just have to test it and see!
I’ve found it difficult to find a clear takeaway from this discussion. I think relevant points are here:
Making each other feel respected
Finding a time that actually works well for both (i.e. not overly inconvenient times)
Saving time scheduling meetings
Some of the suggestions emphasize #1 at the expense of #3 (and possibly #2). E.g., if I send my Calendly and make concrete suggestions, that removes the time-saving aspects because I have to check my calendar and there’s a risk of double-booking (or I have to hold the slots if I want to prevent that).
My current guess is that the following works best: Send the Calendly link, click it yourself briefly to ensure it has a reasonable amount of options in the recipient’s time zone available, and tell the recipient “feel free to just suggest whichever times work best for you.”
Not sure that works for those who are most skeptical/unhappy about Calendly.
That wouldn’t change my feelings, no.
Just learned about this, haven’t tried yet, but it claims to solve the problem mentioned here: https://savvycal.com/
Yes that looks better—similar to Outlook’s inbuilt calendar invite system.
Update: I’ve tried it and switched away from Calendly. I’m very happy with it so far.
I have the same!
For me it’s the feeling of too many options, that some options may be less convenient for the other person than they initially would think, and that I have to try to understand this interface (IT aversion) instead of replying normally (even just clicking on the link feels annoying).
I think that for many , it’s primarily the act of sending a calendly link that is off-putting (for social, potentially status-related, reasons), rather than the experience of interacting with the software. My hunch is that people don’t have the same aversion to, e.g. Doodle, which is more symmetric (it’s not that one person sends their preferences to the other, but everyone lists their preferences). (But you may be different.)
FWIW, I do have this kind of tech aversion. Not to calendly, which I use a lot, but to other similar (and similarly easy to use) interfaces.
I personally have this tech aversion to Calendly and Doodle specifically, but not to other, similar tools that I find more user-friendly, such as When2Meet. The main reason is that I would much prefer a “week view” rather than having to click on each date to reveal the available slots. That said, Calendly is still my most preferred option for scheduling meetings.
Would you be fine with Claire’s suggestion? This one:
Sure!
Huh, I deeply love Calendly and use it for basically everything in my social life. So I’ve found this thread super interesting to see so many different perspectives on it, and how to minimise annoyance to those people. Thanks for starting the thread! (And this is making me paranoid about how many of my friends I piss off by using Calendly...)
Thinking a bit about why I love Calendly so much, a big draw for me is that scheduling takes quite a lot of mental energy from me. Especially suggesting specific times, or saying I can’t make specific times someone else suggested. I think it often feels like I’m being difficult or inconvenient, which I find super aversive, especially if both of us are fairly busy. And Calendly cuts all of that out, which makes me much more willing to organise things!