4 ms·

While my experience matches yours exactly, I just wanted to add to this point: > "One on one meetings are underrated; group meetings waste time" My rule of th

While my experience matches yours exactly, I just wanted to add to this point: > "One on one meetings are underrated; group meetings waste time" My rule of thumb is, “up to 5 people is a meeting; more than 5 is a presentation.”

mark_undoio 5y ago
> My rule of thumb is, “up to 5 people is a meeting; more than 5 is a presentation.” I like this. I do think it's possible to still have an effective meeting with more people (up to, I don't know maybe 8-10?) but it becomes increasingly important to have tight rules around how the meeting runs and what it's supposed to achieve.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Big meetings are often like everyone takes a turn to talk because they’re supposed to, and a few people argue poorly over some point derailing any plan. I’ve often been in them in the baffling position of seeing two people try to discuss something in a way that’s abundantly clear that neither of them understands what the other is saying in more than a very basic way. You can definitely have useful big meetings but it gets harder with increasing size. Rules are one defense, but having a room of people actually good at communicating is much better. And really, do everything you can to kill the meetings where it’s just an obligatory “everybody figure out something to say”
  - mark_undoio 5y ago
    > Big meetings are often like everyone takes a turn to talk because they’re supposed to, and a few people argue poorly over some point derailing any plan. Yes! The meetings where a small number of people are just having a debate with spectators are particularly awful for everybody concerned. > You can definitely have useful big meetings but it gets harder with increasing size. One of the most frustrating meeting dysfunctions I've seen is where large numbers of people are mentally checked out of discussions they're actually needed for - they keep needing stuff to be repeated, which results in others mentally checking out. Eventually it's like a punishment from Hades in which your meeting can never achieve anything but will never end until it does. In the past I've actually run a (somewhat) larger meeting by applying pretty tight time constraints. Actually saying "we're going to get this process fully done in X minutes" focuses minds and makes it become true. > Rules are one defense, but having a room of people actually good at communicating is much better. Back when we were in a physical office I also experimented with banning use of laptops in larger meetings - I think it did actually improve the quality (and speed) of communication in the meeting. But, generally, building that habit of good communication in a team feels really hard. And the shift towards massively more remote working over the last few years has changed the landscape a bit - it seems much easier to stay silent or check out of a video conference. Any suggestions from HN for good principles / reading materials on this?
brightball 5y ago
That’s an excellent rule. I’m going to use that.
JJMcJ 5y ago
C. Northcote Parkinson, in his book "Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress", discussed the evolution of the British cabinet. Don't remember the details but each institution that served as a Cabinet inexorably expanded and was replaced by a smaller one that the King, and later the Prime Minister, used as the inner circle. And five was about the right size for that inner circle. Here in the United States, the official cabinet has over 20 members, obviously too big to serve as such an inner circle.
- Infernal 5y ago
  This is an interesting observation - I decided to look it up, and indeed the first presidential cabinet (including the president) had five members: the others were the Secretaries of State, War, and Treasury, and the Attorney General. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States#H...
  - JJMcJ 5y ago
    Those are more or less the functions that Parkinson described as who needs to be in the inner circle. Parkinson's book is really brilliant observation, with a humorous overlay.
hinkley 5y ago
I think one of my bosses used to say that the ideal meeting size was 4.5 people. Meaning you needed a pretty good reason for number 5. And two people can just meet at a desk. If cubes were still a thing you could do three people without even getting a room.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  Yeah I agree. Only ever include people who are likely to contribute. Fewer is better. And yeah - the number 5 should be approached asymptotically.
  - hinkley 5y ago
    I know from personal experience in volunteer work that I'm pretty comfortable orchestrating around 6 people including myself, and somewhere north of that I get overwhelmed by trying to keep so many plates spinning. I got blindsided with a group of visitors once and I thought my head was going to explode. We ended up having to re-do about a third of their work and another third over time. We came out net positive but most of the benefit went to them, if they had a good experience which I'm not sure I would have noticed either way. I really should have insisted on more help. I don't actually know what my real limit is because I try a little too hard not to find out. Once bitten, twice shy. I'm sure at some point I'll be paid to find out, and I'll go as slow as they'll let me.
    - doctor_eval 5y ago
      I’d say there’s a difference between orchestrating people and running meetings. You wouldn’t generally need to have a meeting with your whole team very often, presumably they have different roles and different goals that you can treat somewhat separately. And when you do need everyone in a room, you’d be better off running it as a presentation (ie, with all the prep and structure that comes with it). (Stand ups, while arguably valuable, are like a series of short presentations, so IMO don’t count as meetings).
      - 5y ago
mesozoic 5y ago
Personally I think more than 3 people starts to get out of hand

mark_undoio 5y ago

> My rule of thumb is, “up to 5 people is a meeting; more than 5 is a presentation.” I like this. I do think it's possible to still have an effective meeting with more people (up to, I don't know maybe 8-10?) but it becomes increasingly important to have tight rules around how the meeting runs and what it's supposed to achieve.

colechristensen 5y ago
Big meetings are often like everyone takes a turn to talk because they’re supposed to, and a few people argue poorly over some point derailing any plan. I’ve often been in them in the baffling position of seeing two people try to discuss something in a way that’s abundantly clear that neither of them understands what the other is saying in more than a very basic way. You can definitely have useful big meetings but it gets harder with increasing size. Rules are one defense, but having a room of people actually good at communicating is much better. And really, do everything you can to kill the meetings where it’s just an obligatory “everybody figure out something to say”
- mark_undoio 5y ago
  > Big meetings are often like everyone takes a turn to talk because they’re supposed to, and a few people argue poorly over some point derailing any plan. Yes! The meetings where a small number of people are just having a debate with spectators are particularly awful for everybody concerned. > You can definitely have useful big meetings but it gets harder with increasing size. One of the most frustrating meeting dysfunctions I've seen is where large numbers of people are mentally checked out of discussions they're actually needed for - they keep needing stuff to be repeated, which results in others mentally checking out. Eventually it's like a punishment from Hades in which your meeting can never achieve anything but will never end until it does. In the past I've actually run a (somewhat) larger meeting by applying pretty tight time constraints. Actually saying "we're going to get this process fully done in X minutes" focuses minds and makes it become true. > Rules are one defense, but having a room of people actually good at communicating is much better. Back when we were in a physical office I also experimented with banning use of laptops in larger meetings - I think it did actually improve the quality (and speed) of communication in the meeting. But, generally, building that habit of good communication in a team feels really hard. And the shift towards massively more remote working over the last few years has changed the landscape a bit - it seems much easier to stay silent or check out of a video conference. Any suggestions from HN for good principles / reading materials on this?

brightball 5y ago

That’s an excellent rule. I’m going to use that.

JJMcJ 5y ago

C. Northcote Parkinson, in his book "Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress", discussed the evolution of the British cabinet. Don't remember the details but each institution that served as a Cabinet inexorably expanded and was replaced by a smaller one that the King, and later the Prime Minister, used as the inner circle. And five was about the right size for that inner circle. Here in the United States, the official cabinet has over 20 members, obviously too big to serve as such an inner circle.

Infernal 5y ago
This is an interesting observation - I decided to look it up, and indeed the first presidential cabinet (including the president) had five members: the others were the Secretaries of State, War, and Treasury, and the Attorney General. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States#H...
- JJMcJ 5y ago
  Those are more or less the functions that Parkinson described as who needs to be in the inner circle. Parkinson's book is really brilliant observation, with a humorous overlay.

hinkley 5y ago

I think one of my bosses used to say that the ideal meeting size was 4.5 people. Meaning you needed a pretty good reason for number 5. And two people can just meet at a desk. If cubes were still a thing you could do three people without even getting a room.

doctor_eval 5y ago
Yeah I agree. Only ever include people who are likely to contribute. Fewer is better. And yeah - the number 5 should be approached asymptotically.
- hinkley 5y ago
  I know from personal experience in volunteer work that I'm pretty comfortable orchestrating around 6 people including myself, and somewhere north of that I get overwhelmed by trying to keep so many plates spinning. I got blindsided with a group of visitors once and I thought my head was going to explode. We ended up having to re-do about a third of their work and another third over time. We came out net positive but most of the benefit went to them, if they had a good experience which I'm not sure I would have noticed either way. I really should have insisted on more help. I don't actually know what my real limit is because I try a little too hard not to find out. Once bitten, twice shy. I'm sure at some point I'll be paid to find out, and I'll go as slow as they'll let me.
  - doctor_eval 5y ago
    I’d say there’s a difference between orchestrating people and running meetings. You wouldn’t generally need to have a meeting with your whole team very often, presumably they have different roles and different goals that you can treat somewhat separately. And when you do need everyone in a room, you’d be better off running it as a presentation (ie, with all the prep and structure that comes with it). (Stand ups, while arguably valuable, are like a series of short presentations, so IMO don’t count as meetings).
    - 5y ago

mesozoic 5y ago

Personally I think more than 3 people starts to get out of hand