5 ms·

https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/laws-of-the-universe-and-teaching/ https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/laws-of-the-unive... Wadge’s Law (of M

https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/laws-of-the-universe-and-teaching/ https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2019/03/24/laws-of-the-unive... Wadge’s Law (of Meetings). Before every formal meeting there’s a smaller, more exclusive, less formal meeting where all the important decisions are made. This is based on decades of experience in academia and friends’ experience in industry and government. Sometimes there’s an even smaller, more exclusive, less formal pre pre meeting where all the decisions of the pre meeting are made. Maybe even a pre pre pre meeting … until you reach some guy deciding everything in the shower.

zaphirplane 6y ago
That’s called an oligarchy in politics. Can’t say it’s a great operational model
- Spooky23 6y ago
  It makes sense where you have a lot of stakeholders. Would you ever debate an approach to doing something in front of a customer? Likewise, if a meeting is where you adjudicate something, you need consensus to focus on the key issue, whatever that is. Otherwise, you’re likely to head into some rabbit hole that results in no decision.
  - zaphirplane 6y ago
    No, We’ve already discussed this and we think your approach is wrong
  - sarakayakomzin 6y ago
    >Would you ever debate an approach to doing something in front of a customer? the dumbest take i've ever seen in economics
- bww 6y ago
  You've probably noticed that there aren't really any successful companies that are run as democracies. There are good reasons for that.
  - alexashka 6y ago
    You can't get to a better future by demanding that it have existed in the past. That doesn't make any sense. Now I'd really like to hear these 'good reasons' and what makes them 'good'. Before you list them, please try and apply them to 'why should we abandon slavery'. If your arguments work for both instances, please explain why we ever abandoned slavery, since clearly there are 'good reasons' for owning slaves, so much so that Americans fought a civil war over it last I checked.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      A word of advice, injecting such topics needlessly distracts from the actual point you’re trying to make.
      - tacitusarc 6y ago
        Unless the discussion is about slavery, in which case, fair enough.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Co-ops?
    - rakoo 6y ago
      I don't know enough about co-ops but it seems to me they not only redefine the power structure, they also redefine what success (for themselves) is and the means to reach it. Unfortunately ou can't directly compare the two.
- matwood 6y ago
  You're assuming it's the small group of people who make the final decision without additional input. Just because a smaller group of people refine and vet an idea, doesn't mean they force it on everyone else. The problem being solved is that most ideas are not good, so any single person with an idea looks to vet it among a trusted group of advisors/peers. If this group is too large, it's hard to deal with the noise, too small and it may kill or ok an idea when it shouldn't be. After refinement with the smaller group, an idea now has enough substance to bring to the larger group and hopefully not waste their time. A simple example this process helps avoid would be pulling together the full group, presenting an idea, and then legal killing it with their first comment. Everyones time was just wasted since the idea as presented had legal issues and needed more refinement.
tootie 6y ago
I'm a boss type guy and I absolutely do this intentionally but not because it's not really me setting policy as much as I'm focus group testing. I run it past peers or a few influential people who could be receptive. Get them to to think about it and give some feedback. When I bring it up to the group it's because it's been well-received and the other influencers are ready to back it. Similar to how this article explains it.
- cle 6y ago
  Yep exactly. If you go into a meeting and you haven't talked to at least a few of the people there about the topic beforehand, IME it's not going to be a productive meeting. I usually start with getting feedback from one or two subject matter experts, building consensus with them, and then slowly expand my circle of people I get feedback from, until we have "the big meeting". Having a "big meeting" with no pre-established context usually wastes everyone's time.
  - vincentmarle 6y ago
    Also known as: consensus driven decision making
    - loopz 6y ago
      Bias through established group-think.
      - cle 6y ago
        It’s easy to criticize, but the reality is that making decision with and motivating large groups of people involves tradeoffs that lead to theoretically suboptimal outcomes.
- nullsense 6y ago
  I feel like everyone savvy just does this because they understand the consequences of not doing it and the clueless people always just bitch about there being so much office politics. In my experience it's just the communication protocol that works.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Meetings should be about consensus. Not hashing things out. Senior folk have experience, and that reduces options to a few. Pre-meeting helps narrow that down further. So at the meeting, only hitches to the (expected) plan are expected. Not building a plan from scratch. Its more like a standup than a bull session.
splittingTimes 6y ago
Manager Tools has a whole pot cast on how to pre-wire meetings https://files.manager-tools.com/files/private/podcast/mp3/manager-tools-2017-12-24.mp3 https://files.manager-tools.com/files/private/podcast/mp3/ma...
MichaelMoser123 6y ago
Thats why it is often hard to follow a meeting! Often they mention acronyms and concepts without bothering to explain them. So it is just a setup because decissions were made in advance, so why do they bother to hold these big meetings? I mean all these commoners could do something productive instead.

zaphirplane 6y ago

That’s called an oligarchy in politics. Can’t say it’s a great operational model

Spooky23 6y ago
It makes sense where you have a lot of stakeholders. Would you ever debate an approach to doing something in front of a customer? Likewise, if a meeting is where you adjudicate something, you need consensus to focus on the key issue, whatever that is. Otherwise, you’re likely to head into some rabbit hole that results in no decision.
- zaphirplane 6y ago
  No, We’ve already discussed this and we think your approach is wrong
- sarakayakomzin 6y ago
  >Would you ever debate an approach to doing something in front of a customer? the dumbest take i've ever seen in economics
bww 6y ago
You've probably noticed that there aren't really any successful companies that are run as democracies. There are good reasons for that.
- alexashka 6y ago
  You can't get to a better future by demanding that it have existed in the past. That doesn't make any sense. Now I'd really like to hear these 'good reasons' and what makes them 'good'. Before you list them, please try and apply them to 'why should we abandon slavery'. If your arguments work for both instances, please explain why we ever abandoned slavery, since clearly there are 'good reasons' for owning slaves, so much so that Americans fought a civil war over it last I checked.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    A word of advice, injecting such topics needlessly distracts from the actual point you’re trying to make.
    - tacitusarc 6y ago
      Unless the discussion is about slavery, in which case, fair enough.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Co-ops?
  - rakoo 6y ago
    I don't know enough about co-ops but it seems to me they not only redefine the power structure, they also redefine what success (for themselves) is and the means to reach it. Unfortunately ou can't directly compare the two.
matwood 6y ago
You're assuming it's the small group of people who make the final decision without additional input. Just because a smaller group of people refine and vet an idea, doesn't mean they force it on everyone else. The problem being solved is that most ideas are not good, so any single person with an idea looks to vet it among a trusted group of advisors/peers. If this group is too large, it's hard to deal with the noise, too small and it may kill or ok an idea when it shouldn't be. After refinement with the smaller group, an idea now has enough substance to bring to the larger group and hopefully not waste their time. A simple example this process helps avoid would be pulling together the full group, presenting an idea, and then legal killing it with their first comment. Everyones time was just wasted since the idea as presented had legal issues and needed more refinement.

tootie 6y ago

I'm a boss type guy and I absolutely do this intentionally but not because it's not really me setting policy as much as I'm focus group testing. I run it past peers or a few influential people who could be receptive. Get them to to think about it and give some feedback. When I bring it up to the group it's because it's been well-received and the other influencers are ready to back it. Similar to how this article explains it.

cle 6y ago
Yep exactly. If you go into a meeting and you haven't talked to at least a few of the people there about the topic beforehand, IME it's not going to be a productive meeting. I usually start with getting feedback from one or two subject matter experts, building consensus with them, and then slowly expand my circle of people I get feedback from, until we have "the big meeting". Having a "big meeting" with no pre-established context usually wastes everyone's time.
- vincentmarle 6y ago
  Also known as: consensus driven decision making
  - loopz 6y ago
    Bias through established group-think.
    - cle 6y ago
      It’s easy to criticize, but the reality is that making decision with and motivating large groups of people involves tradeoffs that lead to theoretically suboptimal outcomes.
nullsense 6y ago
I feel like everyone savvy just does this because they understand the consequences of not doing it and the clueless people always just bitch about there being so much office politics. In my experience it's just the communication protocol that works.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Meetings should be about consensus. Not hashing things out. Senior folk have experience, and that reduces options to a few. Pre-meeting helps narrow that down further. So at the meeting, only hitches to the (expected) plan are expected. Not building a plan from scratch. Its more like a standup than a bull session.

splittingTimes 6y ago

Manager Tools has a whole pot cast on how to pre-wire meetings https://files.manager-tools.com/files/private/podcast/mp3/manager-tools-2017-12-24.mp3 https://files.manager-tools.com/files/private/podcast/mp3/ma...

MichaelMoser123 6y ago

Thats why it is often hard to follow a meeting! Often they mention acronyms and concepts without bothering to explain them. So it is just a setup because decissions were made in advance, so why do they bother to hold these big meetings? I mean all these commoners could do something productive instead.