Suggests the author needs more experience of the workplace.
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.
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".
It'd be easier if they were all just sociopaths.
I tell all my team members to call me out when I've interrupted. I usually catch myself, though, and apologize profusely.
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.
Similarly to that other commenter who didn't give a reason, I would also immediately start looking for work if my workplace implemented this.
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.
[0] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/vagina [1] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/agree [2] http://www.signbsl.com/sign/disagree
Hiding the symbols behind videos means I can't see what the symbol is as the people haven't made it yet, unless I play the video.
Couldn't they have at least one sketch or marked up jpeg showing the symbol or gesture?
Weird.
http://www.lovelifepractice.com/practice/using-hand-signals-...
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.
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.
And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement_hand_signals [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqpAlvDKsI&feature=youtu.be... [3] https://www.signingsavvy.com/sign/APPLAUSE/7950/1
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.
