3 ms·
If there's a meeting and most, but not all, of the folks read the document, then there's the potential they'll have to wait while the others read the document.
by netcoyote 3y ago
If there's a meeting and most, but not all, of the folks read the document, then there's the potential they'll have to wait while the others read the document. To avoid that eventuality, the convention is that no one reads the document until the meeting, and then there's no wasted time.
source: worked at Amazon and was told this by my boss
- seabass-labrax 3y agoThat's a pretty good idea, because reading the preparatory material for a decision is almost always valuable but often not explicitly valued. An employee might think they could be 'doing something better' with the time, but even the meekest worker can confidentially feel justified in reading a document if it has scheduled time in the published agenda. This levels the playing field between the overburdened and the lazy on one side and the well-prepared on the other. From a personal point of view, however, I instinctively dislike the idea: trying to process and evaluate material in public is stressful, chiefly because it is so often in my experience presented in bad faith. The slightest expression of positivity is immediately twisted into unwavering enthusiasm and complete consent, and a hint of misunderstanding is used as justification to discard any further criticism! You have to really trust your colleagues to allow yourself to learn, be confused and risk making mistakes in their company. But if the workplace really does have that non-competitive culture, it is surely the most efficient way of conducting meetings, possibly the best combination of written preparation and live collaboration.