5 ms·

>A meeting with 50+ people that took a month to schedule. It's amazing how they're oblivious to the real problem here.

whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Real solution is “this is when the meeting is, we’ll be making a decision then with or without you” Just gotta stop being silly at some point.
- everforward 4y ago
  I would be very careful taking that line. Organizationally, cutting a group out of decision making is probably the fastest way to alienate them and make them hostile towards other groups. I have had this happen to me; my team is already overloaded from being pulled into various things, some team has a project we don't have time for, they go ahead without us, and it creates a mess. We're mad at them because their system won't work with ours, we blame them for moving ahead without us, they blame us for not being ready to move ahead. The end result was a bunch of re-work and resentment in both sides. It also screws up higher level planning and prioritization. It lets teams directly apply pressure to each other without filtering through upper management who can look at the big picture of prioritization before passing the pressure down. It doesn't matter if project X is more important, project Y is threatening to move ahead without us and we need to get in front of that before it becomes tech debt for us. Ultimatums don't work in relationships, and team dynamics are still a human relationship even if it occurs in a business setting. My real solution is that the lowest manager with oversight over both teams needs to clearly set priorities and expectations, and to enforce those. If that 50 person meeting is for a project with a low priority, people need to accept that it will likely move slowly. If it's for a high priority meeting, management needs to communicate that this meeting trumps other conflicts.
  - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
    It's either important or its not, if its important enough to them they'll be there the same way I'm sure they somehow manage to always be there for their dentist appointment or a parcel arriving at their house or its not important and they just wont be there.
- sirwhinesalot 4y ago
  I agree with the other commenter that this is needlessly antagonistic. Thing is, no meeting needs 50 people. You can invite 50 people to a meeting but most of them will be optional and them showing up or not has little impact. If a meeting is focused on low level concerns, then only the team members involved in the implementation need to participate (if this is more than 10 people, you're probably doing something wrong) If a meeting is focused on high-level concerns, then only representatives are required. This too should be less than 10 people. If a meeting requires the active participation of 50 different people, you've royally messed up your company structure.
maest 4y ago
I am having a hard time believing that people at Meta are really that oblivious that they require random HNers to show them where the issues are with their org. It's probably more likely that there are good reasons why they are doing what they are doing and the root causes for their slowness are a lot more subtle than "meetings too big".
- devwastaken 4y ago
  People are actually very oblivious to how they contribute to the issues in orgs. They are paid to do what they're doing, and rocking the boat will damage their position. Therefore the safest bet is to stay within the fence, and to defend that fence. Anyone that comes in and says "you're wrong" is removed. That upsets the hierarchy.

Real solution is “this is when the meeting is, we’ll be making a decision then with or without you” Just gotta stop being silly at some point.

everforward 4y ago
I would be very careful taking that line. Organizationally, cutting a group out of decision making is probably the fastest way to alienate them and make them hostile towards other groups. I have had this happen to me; my team is already overloaded from being pulled into various things, some team has a project we don't have time for, they go ahead without us, and it creates a mess. We're mad at them because their system won't work with ours, we blame them for moving ahead without us, they blame us for not being ready to move ahead. The end result was a bunch of re-work and resentment in both sides. It also screws up higher level planning and prioritization. It lets teams directly apply pressure to each other without filtering through upper management who can look at the big picture of prioritization before passing the pressure down. It doesn't matter if project X is more important, project Y is threatening to move ahead without us and we need to get in front of that before it becomes tech debt for us. Ultimatums don't work in relationships, and team dynamics are still a human relationship even if it occurs in a business setting. My real solution is that the lowest manager with oversight over both teams needs to clearly set priorities and expectations, and to enforce those. If that 50 person meeting is for a project with a low priority, people need to accept that it will likely move slowly. If it's for a high priority meeting, management needs to communicate that this meeting trumps other conflicts.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  It's either important or its not, if its important enough to them they'll be there the same way I'm sure they somehow manage to always be there for their dentist appointment or a parcel arriving at their house or its not important and they just wont be there.
sirwhinesalot 4y ago
I agree with the other commenter that this is needlessly antagonistic. Thing is, no meeting needs 50 people. You can invite 50 people to a meeting but most of them will be optional and them showing up or not has little impact. If a meeting is focused on low level concerns, then only the team members involved in the implementation need to participate (if this is more than 10 people, you're probably doing something wrong) If a meeting is focused on high-level concerns, then only representatives are required. This too should be less than 10 people. If a meeting requires the active participation of 50 different people, you've royally messed up your company structure.

maest 4y ago

I am having a hard time believing that people at Meta are really that oblivious that they require random HNers to show them where the issues are with their org. It's probably more likely that there are good reasons why they are doing what they are doing and the root causes for their slowness are a lot more subtle than "meetings too big".

devwastaken 4y ago
People are actually very oblivious to how they contribute to the issues in orgs. They are paid to do what they're doing, and rocking the boat will damage their position. Therefore the safest bet is to stay within the fence, and to defend that fence. Anyone that comes in and says "you're wrong" is removed. That upsets the hierarchy.