>I think there is space for more disruptive approach to meetings. Remember Elon Musk saying if he didn't find meetings productive, he would walk out? Stuff like

>I think there is space for more disruptive approach to meetings. Remember Elon Musk saying if he didn't find meetings productive, he would walk out? Stuff like that. The last time I even suggested doing this, I was swiftly met with a "then I'll report it to HR" by the manager. Even though this was in video, with a clear tongue-in-cheeks approach. The majority of my colleagues had nowhere near the audacity to make such a suggestion, let alone actually do this. Reality is most developers aren't working together enough to make it a serious risk for managers not to listen, as the average dev is still replaceable enough. >The difficult part is sometimes teaching devs that they do not exist in a vacuum and the business is more important than the tech. You don't really need meetings for this though. Unless you're trying to convince a stubborn dev by showing him just how much more stubborn stakeholder X, who controls the money, truly is. >Sometimes they need to be in meetings to help others understand I fail to see how pulling the majority of the dev team to the meeting, while at the same time giving them zero time to prepare and zero development in their presentation skills, helps others understand much more if it wasn't something that was so trivial, you could've explained it in a short message. I'm all for helping the client, the higher-ups or any other non-dev who wants to know more and meet the business ends. However, the kneejerk reaction seems to be "let us meet". In reality, they want me to bridge the gaps between their perceived needs, their actual needs, my/our jargon and a way of communication they understand. New-age meetings with barely any preparation or research beforehand, being mostly a back-and-forth, no-holds-barred discussion, have barely ever been a suitable medium for that.