4 ms·

Missing from this (possibly it’s in the author’s book which I’ve not yet read but it’s on my list): For a certain level of discussion, the outcome might have a

Missing from this (possibly it’s in the author’s book which I’ve not yet read but it’s on my list): For a certain level of discussion, the outcome might have already been set, and the meeting is a formality to make it so. So as long as the presentation isn’t a total disaster what’s said during the formal discussion is only refinement or finishing details on an already closed decision. If you’ve ever wondered why in a certain discussion someone “came around” or magically the entire room was in support, either that person or their boss worked it out prior to the meeting. It’s not because the PowerPoint was awesome or the policy proposal is clever. I do this - when I’m working on something (if there’s time) I “run it by” the people who need to buy in. That helps refine the proposal or pitch, but it also helps do a couple of key things: 1. I can say “I ran this by Stan,” privately to some other folks, and truthfully say he liked it or didn’t and I took his feedback into consideration 2. I can hear what people don’t like and either change it or account for constraints they have 3. It prewires the audience. They’ve seen the material or heard it in brief. Some people are readers. Some are listeners. With this approach I can catch both and address them on their communication style 4. At the discussion I can say “I spoke with most of you here to get feedback from product / design / dev / support / ops etc and I heard... and the toll tax is paid to cross various bridges Importantly - the execs themselves can just have a conversation the week or day before and say “hey we have this problem. I need you to listen to ____ and get someone from your team to help.” That works because two months later the other party will say “Hey, remember when I helped you with the thing? I need you to help me with ____ because…” This sort of politics is normal. I’m literally doing it between and across companies on a regular basis. It’s a way to get stuff done, as long as its ethical and doesn’t violate various conduct guidelines and (edit) *its in the org’s best interests.* Most of the time for me at least it’s “can we just get X above the cut line and done by October? I know it’s in November but if it’s in October _____.”

toyg 4y ago
> If you’ve ever wondered why in a certain discussion someone “came around” or magically the entire room was in support, either that person or their boss worked it out prior to the meeting. This is old-school political practice: when it comes to taking decisions, you should go into meetings only if you know in advance what their outcomes will be. Going blind is a defeat in itself. > Hey, remember when I helped you with the thing? I need you to help me with Trading favours is an invaluable skill. A lot of people do favours for free and feel petty if they remind others at later date; figuring out a way to do it in a pretty neutral way, will help you a lot. Typically it's just about figuring out that it's not personal. For a great intro to the practice, the character of Rawls in The Wire is a decent model.
- mikehollinger 4y ago
  Love the Wire : Rawls I think is a great character because he twists the premise. There’s a corollary (I edited my post to make it explicit): all actions should be in the organizations interest. He doesn’t subscribe to that.
  - treis 4y ago
    I'd argue that Rawls more than anyone understands the true purpose of his unit and later the BPD. Ultimately, the BPD works for the mayor and its job is to make the mayor look good. You can see that in how he handles the bodies in the vacants or Hamsterdam. Same thing when he was in homicide. He fights to keep murders off the city's books and clear the ones he can't avoid. Anyways, great show with IMHO some great lessons about dysfunctional organizations.
- chasd00 4y ago
  > ..you should go into meetings only if you know in advance what their outcomes will be. Going blind is a defeat in itself. yep. If you find yourself in a fair fight it's time to re-think your strategy.
- jdbernard 4y ago
  I don't know. While I'm not completely against the points the OP is making, something about this statement "you should go into meetings only if you know in advance what their outcomes will be," really rubs me wrong. In my view, in a healthy organization, the meeting itself should be a point of collaboration. Otherwise it's a waste of time. This culture of behind-the-scenes-go-betweens also creates a lot of opportunity for opacity and malicious miscommunication (deceit). Meetings are not the only collaboration point, probably not even the most effective. OP's advice is good advice for increasing communication and building consensus leading up to a meeting, especially if done with an eye towards transparency, as I assume they intend. Ideally you're able to get everyone aligned beforehand and can cancel the meeting. But if someone walks into a meeting blindsided by a predetermined outcome, that's a red flag that you've created an adversarial environment rather than a collaborative one. If a colleague is important enough to be in the meeting then their opinion is an important enough to affect the meeting.

toyg 4y ago

> If you’ve ever wondered why in a certain discussion someone “came around” or magically the entire room was in support, either that person or their boss worked it out prior to the meeting. This is old-school political practice: when it comes to taking decisions, you should go into meetings only if you know in advance what their outcomes will be. Going blind is a defeat in itself. > Hey, remember when I helped you with the thing? I need you to help me with Trading favours is an invaluable skill. A lot of people do favours for free and feel petty if they remind others at later date; figuring out a way to do it in a pretty neutral way, will help you a lot. Typically it's just about figuring out that it's not personal. For a great intro to the practice, the character of Rawls in The Wire is a decent model.

mikehollinger 4y ago
Love the Wire : Rawls I think is a great character because he twists the premise. There’s a corollary (I edited my post to make it explicit): all actions should be in the organizations interest. He doesn’t subscribe to that.
- treis 4y ago
  I'd argue that Rawls more than anyone understands the true purpose of his unit and later the BPD. Ultimately, the BPD works for the mayor and its job is to make the mayor look good. You can see that in how he handles the bodies in the vacants or Hamsterdam. Same thing when he was in homicide. He fights to keep murders off the city's books and clear the ones he can't avoid. Anyways, great show with IMHO some great lessons about dysfunctional organizations.
chasd00 4y ago
> ..you should go into meetings only if you know in advance what their outcomes will be. Going blind is a defeat in itself. yep. If you find yourself in a fair fight it's time to re-think your strategy.
jdbernard 4y ago
I don't know. While I'm not completely against the points the OP is making, something about this statement "you should go into meetings only if you know in advance what their outcomes will be," really rubs me wrong. In my view, in a healthy organization, the meeting itself should be a point of collaboration. Otherwise it's a waste of time. This culture of behind-the-scenes-go-betweens also creates a lot of opportunity for opacity and malicious miscommunication (deceit). Meetings are not the only collaboration point, probably not even the most effective. OP's advice is good advice for increasing communication and building consensus leading up to a meeting, especially if done with an eye towards transparency, as I assume they intend. Ideally you're able to get everyone aligned beforehand and can cancel the meeting. But if someone walks into a meeting blindsided by a predetermined outcome, that's a red flag that you've created an adversarial environment rather than a collaborative one. If a colleague is important enough to be in the meeting then their opinion is an important enough to affect the meeting.