3 ms·

That is not the only reason she is hated, but yes, some of these things are on the list. In her typical fashion, they are stated in a positive manner when reall

That is not the only reason she is hated, but yes, some of these things are on the list. In her typical fashion, they are stated in a positive manner when really some of them have extremely negative consequences. But I guess these are the perks of being in the first fifty and having the king's ear. 1. Set a firm agenda. It also helps to have and frequently exercise unilateral veto or green light power. It's a lot easier to hold meetings in which you don't have to build consensus or even explain your decisions to the people whose year's work you are killing after just having heard of it half an hour before. 2. Assign a note taker. Sucks to be the engineer who gets this task. Maybe my brain needs a second channel where I can actually think about what's happening and one to take the notes with. As it is, when I get to be the note taker I'm reduced to a speech-to-text machine with no agency in the room. 3. Carve out micro-meetings. Once again, absolute power of the pen makes this a bit easier. 4. Hold office hours. Nothing to complain about this one. Damn good idea. Wish I had the political capital to pull it off myself but it's hard to get people to buy into that when you are an IC. My workaround is to disappear from my desk a couple hours of each week to put my head down. Not as effective as "You can only talk to me between three and five on Wednesday, and by the way sign up two weeks in advance before all the slots are booked out," but we work with what we've got. 5. Discourage politics, use data. That is, when it's beneficial to the point of view you already hold or when you don't care and just want to make a safe decision. 6. Stick to the clock. Whatever. OK, I guess. I'd also like to point out that none of these things happen in the vast majority of the meetings I attend. Normally it's agenda-free and the most senior person in charge wastes everyone's time by interrogating the tech lead about things that senior person should have read in the design document that was sent out the day before, and that besides that are higher resolution than the senior person rightly needs to know about, while everyone else sits around and checks email. Like meetings at any company.

pasbesoin 17y ago
Your final comments touch upon a couple of peeves of mine. I would insist: 1) That hosts and presenters supply relevant materials enough in advance to allow review, when said are not already available. Over 75% of internal meetings I've attended in the past some years have the agenda delivered via email less than 5 minutes before the meeting start. It may serve the CYA documentation requirement, but little else. 2) That attendees actually prep for the meeting. Sometimes, with a small and/or tight team, people already know the situation and are ready to put their heads together. Much more often, though, many enter the meeting with little or no knowledge of what it's about. (These are the same people who spent e.g. the previous hour schmoozing at each other's cubes.) 75% of the meeting time is spent rehashing what is already known, in an inefficient verbal format. Is it any wonder that those who are actually on top of things hate meetings? Working on a good and conscientious team, I've been able to hold meetings that sometimes require only a few minutes and that break up as soon as the questions and information at hand are addressed. (Perhaps with a few minutes extra for a bit of humor and socialization, depending on schedules.) Outside of that context, I just stopped going to some meetings, when I could afford to. Restated briefly, if you can't be bothered to document the topic, why should I go to your meeting and do it myself with a bunch of idle time and intermittent note-taking? And/or sit quietly while others catch up. (Or worse, I find myself repeatedly having to correct and clarify the host.) If/when you need my help badly enough, you'll start being more efficient (and respectful). Of course, this attitude does not go over so well, politically. Which is probably a good sign to start looking for the next gig.

pasbesoin 17y ago

Your final comments touch upon a couple of peeves of mine. I would insist: 1) That hosts and presenters supply relevant materials enough in advance to allow review, when said are not already available. Over 75% of internal meetings I've attended in the past some years have the agenda delivered via email less than 5 minutes before the meeting start. It may serve the CYA documentation requirement, but little else. 2) That attendees actually prep for the meeting. Sometimes, with a small and/or tight team, people already know the situation and are ready to put their heads together. Much more often, though, many enter the meeting with little or no knowledge of what it's about. (These are the same people who spent e.g. the previous hour schmoozing at each other's cubes.) 75% of the meeting time is spent rehashing what is already known, in an inefficient verbal format. Is it any wonder that those who are actually on top of things hate meetings? Working on a good and conscientious team, I've been able to hold meetings that sometimes require only a few minutes and that break up as soon as the questions and information at hand are addressed. (Perhaps with a few minutes extra for a bit of humor and socialization, depending on schedules.) Outside of that context, I just stopped going to some meetings, when I could afford to. Restated briefly, if you can't be bothered to document the topic, why should I go to your meeting and do it myself with a bunch of idle time and intermittent note-taking? And/or sit quietly while others catch up. (Or worse, I find myself repeatedly having to correct and clarify the host.) If/when you need my help badly enough, you'll start being more efficient (and respectful). Of course, this attitude does not go over so well, politically. Which is probably a good sign to start looking for the next gig.