4 ms·

> 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

> 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?

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?