3 ms·

I thought the meetings example was a weak one for the author to criticize. When I read "meetings are toxic," I interpret that as, "most meetings are a bad idea,

• axod 17y ago
  It's interesting in light of the recent discussions about advertising. Since this is pretty similar. "Meetings are toxic" is a sweeping generalization, which is obviously false. But it gets a high clickthrough/buy book/etc so it's what they use. >> On the other hand, "Good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good" doesn't tell me anything. What is there to tell though? Make sure meetings are productive, and if they're not, have less of them or make them more productive :/ hardly rocket science is it?
  • gizmo 17y ago
    > "Meetings are toxic" is a sweeping generalization, which is obviously false. Alcohol is also toxic. Does that mean you should avoid alcohol altogether? Nope. But it does mean that you shouldn't spend your days drinking.
• inerte 17y ago
  I read as you do, and as the provided linked page explains, but how is it described in the book? If the general tone of the "Meetings are toxic" chapter (passage?) is such as "you're dumb for even trying to attend, let alone organize, a meeting", then recognizing that some meetings can be good, as a footnote to a stronger idea of toxicity to most meetings, shows a lack of understanding of importance of good meetings from the author. While if the opposite is true, and the book tries to show how good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good, than the reviewer did not read (or understood) what he's criticizing.
• davidw 17y ago
  Of course it doesn't tell you anything. If this stuff could all be reduced to a simple formula, it would all be outsourced to India and China.