5 ms·

For every meeting I create since it takes up people's time, on google calendar I put 2 things in the description: 1. Purpose 2. Agenda Purpose makes me think

For every meeting I create since it takes up people's time, on google calendar I put 2 things in the description: 1. Purpose 2. Agenda Purpose makes me think - is this meeting necessary? - and also answers why we are having this meeting. Agenda gives others context on what to expect within the meeting as topics of discussion, as well as clarifies the format of engagement.

ltbarcly3 7y ago
How do you have a meeting that doesn't take up people's time?
- weixiyen 7y ago
  edit "that" to "since it" for clarity
- Arnt 7y ago
  An hour-long meeting takes an hour, but "takes up people's time" is something people say about meetings if e.g. half the attendees get something useful out of the first half hour and the other half of the attendees get something useful out of the second half hour. It's a judgment, and if you can engage with the details of what went right and wrong with this week's meetings, then it's possible to tune next week's so the attendees judge them to be "useful" instead of something that "takes up people's time".
joncrocks 7y ago
Agreed, I state this as you need at least: 1. Agenda 2. Expected outcomes Agenda forces the host/chair to consider how many items are going to be discussed, how long each might take and most importantly scopes the meeting allowing the host/chair to keep things on-topic. If you're organising an important meeting with lots of topics to discuss, but only have 30 mins scheduled due to "scheduling issues", you're doing it wrong. The expected outcomes ensures that everyone knows up front what is expected to be the output of the meeting. Is a decision is to be made? Are we just looking to gather input? This helps ensure that the right people are in the room. No-one should be able to say "I'd like to say yes, but Bob is out and I can't say yes without Bob's say-so." It also helps with a focus for the ending of the meeting.
- weixiyen 7y ago
  yea agree 100%, usually the last item on my agenda is "make a decision, can agree to disagree"
snarf21 7y ago
This is a great start and far more than most people do. The other thing that most meetings fail at is having someone run the agenda. Someone who keeps the meeting to the agenda, prevents people from getting off topic, makes sure the discussion is pushing towards the stated purpose. The problem is that no one generally wants to be the "bad guy" and they just let the meeting happen. It is also true that sometimes the meeting might be to review a document but people will show up without having read it. This is a waste of everyone's time. But the meeting runner doesn't want to break social norms and call people out. "So you didn't prepare for this meeting Mike, so your time is more important than everyone else's time who did read the document?" In the end, it is about culture. You have to decide that these things matter. You can have productive 5 minute stand-ups or non-productive 60 minute stand-ups. You have to build the expectation that the point of all meetings is to get on the same page as a team or to make sure you stay there. Most meetings do fail at this.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago
  It's a similar issue in presidential debates. Someone needs to have the authority that something is off topic or off the rails or whatever, but they have to balance that against things that need to be said. And the choice has political implications, big or small politics. The whole point of structure in these types of dialogues is to reveal the nuggets worth talking about, not cover them up in favor of following the rules.
  - gwbas1c 7y ago
    [Politics] That was why I liked the CNN debates in July. (Democratic presidential primary candidates in the US.) The moderators kept the debate on topic and politely (as best as they could) cut off the candidates when they went off topic. The next day, a lot of the political coverage complained that the moderators got in the way too much! Sigh.
  - snarf21 7y ago
    It is definitely a skill that the meeting runner needs to have. You don't need to keep it completely choked off but you do need the ability to call a spade, a spade. When someone is just repeating someone else to kiss up, then they can move the conversation along. We have someone who always brings up some story about some company he worked at 20 years ago and blah, blah, blah. But it isn't a "We solved this at company X by doing Y, should we try that here?", it is more like a 15 minute chest pounding of "Back when I ran the largest logistics company providing dental products to all the Fortune 500 and the government, I was in charge of 5K employees. When we faced challenge X,...... blah blah blah". This is where someone needs to step in. Again, most people don't want to be the jerk and so everyone sits there listening to this person talk about himself and wasting everyone's time.
gwbas1c 7y ago
I started declining small meetings that don't meet this bar. First, I'll reply with, "what's your agenda." If I get a flippant answer, I decline. It pisses my boss off, but it's extremely effective. Flippant answer: "I'd like to talk to you about [product / project / job title]"
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wry_discontent 7y ago
  I would like to do something like that, but I don't feel like I could get away with it. I'd get a follow up email with something like "You have to come. It's your job." How do people pull off stuff like this?
  - telchar 7y ago
    You could try reversing that and asking them to set an agenda before you a accept the meeting. Keep asking specific questions if needed. If they won't answer, you can pull the "it's your job" card on them. I make no warranty on this method however, just a thought.
  - gwbas1c 7y ago
    Just ignore the meeting.

ltbarcly3 7y ago

How do you have a meeting that doesn't take up people's time?

weixiyen 7y ago
edit "that" to "since it" for clarity
Arnt 7y ago
An hour-long meeting takes an hour, but "takes up people's time" is something people say about meetings if e.g. half the attendees get something useful out of the first half hour and the other half of the attendees get something useful out of the second half hour. It's a judgment, and if you can engage with the details of what went right and wrong with this week's meetings, then it's possible to tune next week's so the attendees judge them to be "useful" instead of something that "takes up people's time".

joncrocks 7y ago

Agreed, I state this as you need at least: 1. Agenda 2. Expected outcomes Agenda forces the host/chair to consider how many items are going to be discussed, how long each might take and most importantly scopes the meeting allowing the host/chair to keep things on-topic. If you're organising an important meeting with lots of topics to discuss, but only have 30 mins scheduled due to "scheduling issues", you're doing it wrong. The expected outcomes ensures that everyone knows up front what is expected to be the output of the meeting. Is a decision is to be made? Are we just looking to gather input? This helps ensure that the right people are in the room. No-one should be able to say "I'd like to say yes, but Bob is out and I can't say yes without Bob's say-so." It also helps with a focus for the ending of the meeting.

weixiyen 7y ago
yea agree 100%, usually the last item on my agenda is "make a decision, can agree to disagree"

snarf21 7y ago

This is a great start and far more than most people do. The other thing that most meetings fail at is having someone run the agenda. Someone who keeps the meeting to the agenda, prevents people from getting off topic, makes sure the discussion is pushing towards the stated purpose. The problem is that no one generally wants to be the "bad guy" and they just let the meeting happen. It is also true that sometimes the meeting might be to review a document but people will show up without having read it. This is a waste of everyone's time. But the meeting runner doesn't want to break social norms and call people out. "So you didn't prepare for this meeting Mike, so your time is more important than everyone else's time who did read the document?" In the end, it is about culture. You have to decide that these things matter. You can have productive 5 minute stand-ups or non-productive 60 minute stand-ups. You have to build the expectation that the point of all meetings is to get on the same page as a team or to make sure you stay there. Most meetings do fail at this.

noobiemcfoob 7y ago
It's a similar issue in presidential debates. Someone needs to have the authority that something is off topic or off the rails or whatever, but they have to balance that against things that need to be said. And the choice has political implications, big or small politics. The whole point of structure in these types of dialogues is to reveal the nuggets worth talking about, not cover them up in favor of following the rules.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  [Politics] That was why I liked the CNN debates in July. (Democratic presidential primary candidates in the US.) The moderators kept the debate on topic and politely (as best as they could) cut off the candidates when they went off topic. The next day, a lot of the political coverage complained that the moderators got in the way too much! Sigh.
- snarf21 7y ago
  It is definitely a skill that the meeting runner needs to have. You don't need to keep it completely choked off but you do need the ability to call a spade, a spade. When someone is just repeating someone else to kiss up, then they can move the conversation along. We have someone who always brings up some story about some company he worked at 20 years ago and blah, blah, blah. But it isn't a "We solved this at company X by doing Y, should we try that here?", it is more like a 15 minute chest pounding of "Back when I ran the largest logistics company providing dental products to all the Fortune 500 and the government, I was in charge of 5K employees. When we faced challenge X,...... blah blah blah". This is where someone needs to step in. Again, most people don't want to be the jerk and so everyone sits there listening to this person talk about himself and wasting everyone's time.

gwbas1c 7y ago

I started declining small meetings that don't meet this bar. First, I'll reply with, "what's your agenda." If I get a flippant answer, I decline. It pisses my boss off, but it's extremely effective. Flippant answer: "I'd like to talk to you about [product / project / job title]"

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wry_discontent 7y ago
I would like to do something like that, but I don't feel like I could get away with it. I'd get a follow up email with something like "You have to come. It's your job." How do people pull off stuff like this?
- telchar 7y ago
  You could try reversing that and asking them to set an agenda before you a accept the meeting. Keep asking specific questions if needed. If they won't answer, you can pull the "it's your job" card on them. I make no warranty on this method however, just a thought.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  Just ignore the meeting.