Enjoyed this article. (Also, now I know how to spell "mosaicked.")
I have (and I'm totally serious when I say this), PowerPoint narcolepsy. If I walk into a meeting and there's someone firing up their PowerPoint presentation I make sure that I'm sitting in back of everyone because I will inevitably nod off. Darkened room, lighted screen, no Tom Hardy...
I have yet see a PowerPoint meeting presentation that brought anything of value to my daily work.
But as with anything there's a middle ground between corporate board meetings and 5 minute Agile stand-ups. Have an agenda, keep the party list to well under 10 (3=5 is good if you can do it) and for God's sake - DON'T make a meeting longer than an hour. Ever. I like to make mine 20 minutes with a 10 minute after buffer for questions and clarifications.
And the qualification for actually having a meeting in the first place? Purpose. If I start my meeting objective statement with "We need to meet so we can review..." then no. Send out the materials, then set a meeting with the objective of "We need to meet so we can decide...".
I have yet see a PowerPoint meeting presentation that brought anything of value to my daily work.
But as with anything there's a middle ground between corporate board meetings and 5 minute Agile stand-ups. Have an agenda, keep the party list to well under 10 (3=5 is good if you can do it) and for God's sake - DON'T make a meeting longer than an hour. Ever. I like to make mine 20 minutes with a 10 minute after buffer for questions and clarifications.
And the qualification for actually having a meeting in the first place? Purpose. If I start my meeting objective statement with "We need to meet so we can review..." then no. Send out the materials, then set a meeting with the objective of "We need to meet so we can decide...".
7
Meetings can be effective when conducted in one of two ways: at a lunch or going for a walk. If there must be a meeting in the office, all should stand (this is how the US Navy conducts its Quarters or daily briefings of the crews and officers); no one should be invited to a meeting who does not have a speaking part.
1
Meeting arise from need. If there's no need, then meetings should not be held. Best thing in technology companies is to have many regularly scheduled meetings which are timed to not interfere with each other, then severely restrict the length and/or cancel most of them. Most companies need good communication more than they need good meetings. If you're designing a space shuttle, well, then you need meetings. If you're designing a web server, you don't. Linus Torvalds has meetings because he's designing an operating system. You can easily stun more than 1/2 of meetings into non-existence by simply asking "what's the purpose of this meeting?"
1
I worked for 18 years for a Fortune 500 company where meetings ruled. No one was ever free, ever. It was a giant pain and the result was that decisions that needed input from others weren't made in a timely manner and it took forever to get anything done. We tried all sorts of things but the meetings culture was rooted in our company DNA...
I spent a lot of time doing consulting type work in corporate America. Saw hundreds of workplaces and the thing I learned is that if you fired 60% of the people, especially management, in the average company nothing would change.
A meeting is usually just an opportunity to waste time. Make the boss feel loke the boss. Information can be assembled and distributed via email. Real decisions are never made with a vote of more than three people. And in today's workplace I really don't care what the guy next to me is doing. I got stuff to do.
Given that "professionals" work silly hours for no more money meetings are free so why not waste time?
And I didn't even have to waste time reading this guys article about meetings to explain them.
A meeting is usually just an opportunity to waste time. Make the boss feel loke the boss. Information can be assembled and distributed via email. Real decisions are never made with a vote of more than three people. And in today's workplace I really don't care what the guy next to me is doing. I got stuff to do.
Given that "professionals" work silly hours for no more money meetings are free so why not waste time?
And I didn't even have to waste time reading this guys article about meetings to explain them.
3
As a veteran of many many many meetings, I suggest this: If you absolutely must hold a meeting limit the attendees to no more that five, and hold the meeting in the janitorial closet. No chairs, no surfaces to set a device on, mops, buckets, the mop sink. Close the door, run through a pre-announced agenda. If the purpose of the meeting is just to disseminate information, send a "top secret (wink, wink)" email to anyone, but CC the person that everyone knows as the office gossip -- you will have saved time and the info will spread like wildfire. Won't really matter if the info is altered and misunderstood in the transmission because that will happen no matter how you send it.
I work in a project management capacity with designers and engineers and my responsibilities include ensuring that projects get completed on time and on budget. Why is it always that those of us with the administrative skills to successfully organize and manage projects, including wrangling "the creative talent," are so thoroughly unappreciated? We deserve our own version of maker hours--respite from the thankless slog that is project management. Project managers are people worthy of advancement and opportunity, too.
1
We deserve our own version of maker hours...
If you really want to have fun and experience an abundance of "maker hours" even more than the engineers and product design folks get then I have one word for you.
SALES!
If you really want to have fun and experience an abundance of "maker hours" even more than the engineers and product design folks get then I have one word for you.
SALES!
Really, it's all just one long meeting. The official ones, obviously. But - at the store, in the park, at night, in the club, in the class, etc. etc. All we do is meet. and, of course, greet.
Was it for these the great universe made our lonely planet and instigated a succession of stupendous events leading to life?
Was it for these the great universe made our lonely planet and instigated a succession of stupendous events leading to life?
Schedule regular weekly, bi- weekly or monthly team meetings only. Reduce or add to the selected interval in order to keep typical meetings under three to five main topics and less than 60 minutes in total length. Any temptation to schedule all other meetings should be avoided, unless there is a major crisis or an all encompassing project change. Any meetings beyond these are an epic, productivity sucking waste of time. People just don't have the interest or mind-space to absorb that much more of your wisdom each week. They will quickly tune out, no matter the greatness of your genius. Your core messages, goals and priorities will become quickly diluted, as the minds of team members gradually turn into mush. Take this advice from the attendee and/or initiator of no less than several thousand business meetings, derived from a long career working in both startups and Fortune 50 companies.
Meetings, managers - unimaginative, slavish hall monitors. I had a colleague who would be concerned that a bright bunch of young, new recruits did not have any "questions" at the meetings, and she quickly surmised that they had neither the drive, nor the ambition to "make it". I had to bite my tongue to avoid saying, "relax, you're not doling out rocket science here."
2
All too often I find meetings called by people who have no business being in the positions they hold. They are not aware of the content, not fluent in the process and, while they are trying to get a basic education in a topic so they can look smart to their bosses (and, really, how smart can they be? They hired the meeting caller!). The meeting fills the time available to it, there is no attempt to craft an idea of what success (ideally, the end-point of this stupid stupid meeting) looks like, nobody is charged with a deliverable and there are no measurable outcomes. So, naturally, we have to meet again next week...and again and again. Until it is about 10 minutes before a regulatory visit and then we call in the consultants...nice people who are actually competent adults and, through their fee schedules, make the company pay for having hired these resident nincompoops. Oh yeah! I know about meetings!
5
Quite simply a meeting is a tool for communication -- to convey or exchange information in order to complete a task. When it strays from that specific purpose, it's a waste of everyone's time.
5
When I was manager of 24 employees I was forced to have a department meeting once a month by upper management located in another state. I would give out an agenda 1-2 days before the one hour meeting, always had food and drinks, made sure the actual "meeting" portion lasted no more than 40 minutes, and we spent the last 15-20 minutes playing games and chatting. The most productive meetings were small group gatherings for a casual chat in my office having an "un- meeting."
4
Meetings may be terminally boring, called at ridiculous times and dreadfully drawn out, but that hardly makes them useless. It's all about control and how hierarchies maintain it. Serfdom with suits, and those had better be what the corner office characters have chosen this month (or even week), never mind the difficulty finding out the 'right' designer , let alone paying for it all. Anything to keep the peasants from having any say over their own lives.
1
I sat through so many useless meetings, I felt liberated when I formed my own corporation, and only had to sit with the two other employees at tax time. Communicated with e mail and text , worked just fine. I learned meetings in coproate life, are usually called by someone who has the authority to call one. Then you have to listen to him or her speak. Have to admit the coffee and pastry was always good. Or the other favorite of meetings, was to avoid talking on the phone as voice mail was set at, I am in a meeting,
1
The best way to kill an idea is to take it to a meeting.
4
When I did my PhD in Holland I had to submit seven non-topic related propositions. One was "Meetings are to the mind what idling is to an engine: it takes energy, it creates hot air, it is bad for the system and it does not get you anywhere." My committee was not pleased...
9
I've worked at firms where meetings were for decisions and others where meeting were an excuse to avoid work. Lately it's been the latter and it drives me crazy. If you don't need me in the room to help move a project forward please don't invite me. I've got better things to do with my time, like work.
6
Problems with meetings:
- No agenda is published in advance. No identified goals are to be accomplished.
- They are held at the same time periodically, regardless of need.
- Everyone who could possibly "feel bad" by being excluded is included—like a kid's birthday party.
- They last 63 minutes because the default duration is 60 minutes.
- No take-aways, to-dos, or minutes are published.
This has become part of the corporate culture. In the 1970s, I probably was in ten meetings a year. At one point a few years ago (not with my current employer) a quarter of my time every day was on conference calls. People were holding conference calls at 5 a.m. U.S. time because of overseas connections. Some meetings were scheduled for Saturday.
Most real problem-solved occurs through face-to-face or one-to-one telephone conversations, or e-mail.
There must be a better way. If I could formulate it and sell it, I would.
- No agenda is published in advance. No identified goals are to be accomplished.
- They are held at the same time periodically, regardless of need.
- Everyone who could possibly "feel bad" by being excluded is included—like a kid's birthday party.
- They last 63 minutes because the default duration is 60 minutes.
- No take-aways, to-dos, or minutes are published.
This has become part of the corporate culture. In the 1970s, I probably was in ten meetings a year. At one point a few years ago (not with my current employer) a quarter of my time every day was on conference calls. People were holding conference calls at 5 a.m. U.S. time because of overseas connections. Some meetings were scheduled for Saturday.
Most real problem-solved occurs through face-to-face or one-to-one telephone conversations, or e-mail.
There must be a better way. If I could formulate it and sell it, I would.
12
1. No agenda is published in advance. No identified goals are to be accomplished.
2. They are held at the same time periodically, regardless of need.
3. Everyone who could possibly "feel bad" by being excluded is included—like a kid's birthday party.
4. They last 63 minutes because the default duration is 60 minutes.
5. No take-aways, to-dos, or minutes are published.
I'm a retired project manager. The points you make in your post are excellent, and they're also project management 101. No competent project manager will be guilty of points 1, 2 or 5. As to point 4, I've extended meetings past the agreed-upon time occasionally - with the consent and often at the request of the group - when we need extra time to reach a decision and assign tasks. People should leave meetings fired up and ready to roll.
As to your third point, if the meeting is project-based, then employees who aren't at the meeting know (or should know if they're professional adults), that inclusion is based on project need, individual skill set as it applies to project need, and comes with responsibilities (i.e. it's not a party - you leave meetings with assigned work that will be tracked and about which you'll report back to the team).
I'm surprised to read that the points you make go largely unaddressed where you've worked. That failure represents a basic lack of common sense. I worked in IT on large projects, so maybe it's different in the non-IT world? I guess I never realized how lucky I was!
2. They are held at the same time periodically, regardless of need.
3. Everyone who could possibly "feel bad" by being excluded is included—like a kid's birthday party.
4. They last 63 minutes because the default duration is 60 minutes.
5. No take-aways, to-dos, or minutes are published.
I'm a retired project manager. The points you make in your post are excellent, and they're also project management 101. No competent project manager will be guilty of points 1, 2 or 5. As to point 4, I've extended meetings past the agreed-upon time occasionally - with the consent and often at the request of the group - when we need extra time to reach a decision and assign tasks. People should leave meetings fired up and ready to roll.
As to your third point, if the meeting is project-based, then employees who aren't at the meeting know (or should know if they're professional adults), that inclusion is based on project need, individual skill set as it applies to project need, and comes with responsibilities (i.e. it's not a party - you leave meetings with assigned work that will be tracked and about which you'll report back to the team).
I'm surprised to read that the points you make go largely unaddressed where you've worked. That failure represents a basic lack of common sense. I worked in IT on large projects, so maybe it's different in the non-IT world? I guess I never realized how lucky I was!
5
How does this square with the marquee article in the issue, which says that the most important habit of a high-performing team is creating a group norm that supports psychological safety? "Everyone hates meetings", but they are the best - and maybe the only - way for a group's culture and norms to be established and positively reinforced.
5
"They’re boring. They’re useless. Everyone hates them. So why can’t we stop having meetings?"
Sometimes they're interesting and useful. I've actually looked forward to some meetings. Why? Because decisions get made and stuff gets done. I think that's why we keep having them. Sometimes you have to get together as a group to hash out ideas, come up with a plan, assign tasks, track progress, make group decisions, and discuss and respond to changes.
The problem with bad meetings is that they're held without a goal in mind and that, as a result, nothing gets done. Meetings should be a means to and end, not an end in themselves. And they certainly should not be held solely to give some manager a captive audience before whom he can bloviate.
Sometimes they're interesting and useful. I've actually looked forward to some meetings. Why? Because decisions get made and stuff gets done. I think that's why we keep having them. Sometimes you have to get together as a group to hash out ideas, come up with a plan, assign tasks, track progress, make group decisions, and discuss and respond to changes.
The problem with bad meetings is that they're held without a goal in mind and that, as a result, nothing gets done. Meetings should be a means to and end, not an end in themselves. And they certainly should not be held solely to give some manager a captive audience before whom he can bloviate.
10
Right. We've swung the pendulum too far the other direction in my workplace right now. There are people working independently on the same task, duplicating effort, and other needed tasks are never getting done. Trying to get information, or push information, is like pulling teeth. I want to go back to having a weekly one-hour sit-down where we can talk about what we're facing in the week ahead. Somehow we can't seem to get back to that and it's chaos.
4
I belong to several different groups and have participated in them as leader and follower. I think the reasons why people hate meetings are not so much the meetings themselves but how they are planned and executed.
The groups I am part of do things like distribute important points to preview ahead of time, set up an agenda, start and end on time, end with action points, table controversial issues so they don't suck up time, etc. So few think they are boring or useless. They're quite productive.
The groups I am part of do things like distribute important points to preview ahead of time, set up an agenda, start and end on time, end with action points, table controversial issues so they don't suck up time, etc. So few think they are boring or useless. They're quite productive.
4
Peter Drucker, the great management guru said that one could either meet or work, and that meetings were a symptom of overstaffing. Most meetings are poorly run, rife with multitasking, and occur with no particular goal. Give me maker time anytime!
3
I suspect there is a skew to this article, as most of the firms involved are relatively early in their lifecycles.
Organisations evolve through three phases: creation, growth, stability/stasis. Each requires a different approach. No phase is better than the other, but people are more comfortable in one versus the others. Staff tension is inevitable when a firm or a team is transitioning from one phase to the next, as is turnover. Founders leave when the company gets “too big”; builders leave when revenue plus share price growth ends and cost management (against limited revenue growth) takes priority. Such is life.
So the “makers versus managers” argument is just tension resulting from the organization evolving to the next phase. After all, try running a firm with no management. As for meetings, I was taught, "Meetings are for decisions, not discovery. Send the needed information out beforehand, then come prepared to make decisions. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."
Organisations evolve through three phases: creation, growth, stability/stasis. Each requires a different approach. No phase is better than the other, but people are more comfortable in one versus the others. Staff tension is inevitable when a firm or a team is transitioning from one phase to the next, as is turnover. Founders leave when the company gets “too big”; builders leave when revenue plus share price growth ends and cost management (against limited revenue growth) takes priority. Such is life.
So the “makers versus managers” argument is just tension resulting from the organization evolving to the next phase. After all, try running a firm with no management. As for meetings, I was taught, "Meetings are for decisions, not discovery. Send the needed information out beforehand, then come prepared to make decisions. Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time."
19
Right. And meetings are good for holding your peers accountable for the assignments they took on, since if they didn't do them, they have to tell the group they didn't do them. So you remind them the week before, "on Monday we are going to meet about so-and-so, and you'll have to be ready to talk about what you did." Otherwise, every time it's "I need to" and "it's just a matter of."
5