4 ms·

There are some who believe that meetings are work. If those people are in charge of an organization, there will be tension with people who have real tasks and d

There are some who believe that meetings are work. If those people are in charge of an organization, there will be tension with people who have real tasks and deliverables. My preferred approach is not to modify the meetings to make them more efficient, but to go on an extremist crusade against all meetings. Insist on asynchronous communication. Create dashboards with whatever metrics are discussed at status update meetings. Have people write memos explaining new proposals. Some meetings will survive the crusade, and that’s ok. All meetings aren’t actually bad, but that should be the default.

efitz 3y ago
There are some who believe that meetings never accomplish anything. If those people are in positions of power in an organization, there will be tension with people who use meetings effectively to coordinate, communicate and drive decision making with all stakeholders present.
- gustavus 3y ago
  I've seen this argument often but I'd guess 50-75% of the meetings in my organization could've been handled in an email. Often times the only reason we have a meeting in the first place instead of an email is because of the politics around things, which to me is a sign of inefficiency in the 1st place.
  - ASalazarMX 3y ago
    I've seen that different teams have different priorities, and while emails do help avoid many meetings, there's nothing like an in-person meeting to coordinate efforts. Also, the more your meeting goes beyong half an hour, the less fruitful it becomes. Half-hour meetings are the most productive, one-hour meetings are understandable, multi-hour meetings are dreadful.
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  >There are some who believe that meetings never accomplish anything. No there aren't. If you are consistently getting push backs on meetings within your org it's not that the teams or IC's believe that meetings are useless (what a silly thing to say) it's a sign that they don't have faith in the organization structure to concretely do anything with the information or provide valuable input. If you try to setup a meeting and get push back you should _immediately_ ask yourself why the other person feels that way about the people involved or even yourself.
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    > No there aren't. Reading other comments in this thread will reveal a lot of them. :) I've worked remote and across time zones for a while. I've encountered a few too many engineers who think any form of meeting or even communication is an unnecessary burden. They just want a queue of perfectly defined tickets to pull from and nobody to bother them until it's done at whatever pace they feel like working that week. Strangely, being in a low-meeting company seems to make it worse, because meetings are so few and far between that some people get unreasonably upset when their week goes from 1 meeting to 2 meetings because we dared double their meeting load this week.
    - robocat 3y ago
      > unreasonably upset I suspect some people have a conditioned pathological response to meetings - µPTSD. Watch a bit of the GitLab Meeting Similator video and who could retain their sanity if they must participate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOqgRiNMVqg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOqgRiNMVqg Watch the lady in the bottom panel struggle to look appropriately interested (or am I just projecting?).
- michaelcampbell 3y ago
  > There are some who believe that meetings never accomplish anything. No more than those that believe every last one is 100% useful.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ungreased0675 3y ago
  The tension is the desired outcome. I know meetings are useful and necessary, but if I start with the extreme position of “all meetings are worthless productivity leeches” it changes the conversation from justifying changing meetings to meetings having to justify their existence. Meetings should have to fight for their lives, not the other way around.
88913527 3y ago
Leaders have a responsibility to ensure their teams deliver. When the teams agree to async communication --and the channels remain silent-- where is the accountability when there is no deliverable and no visibility into the scenario that led to no output? To be clear, this doesn't mean 100% sync. But a 10 minute daily sync can ensure the team is focused on producing something of business value. Maximal autonomy within some guardrails keeps the ICs and management at their best.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  > Leaders have a responsibility to ensure their teams deliver. When the teams agree to async communication --and the channels remain silent-- where is the accountability when there is no deliverable and no visibility into the scenario that led to no output? A good leader then talks to the team as the professional adults they are to understand why there isn't communication at the cadence that was agreed upon and discusses why such communication is important.
- theideaofcoffee 3y ago
  If there's no deliverable and no visibility, that's a failure of management, either to define the deliverable to a more granular extent where an update could cover the progress, even if async, which would also fix not having visibility. A developer piping up async and saying 'no updates, still working' is still an update and gives visibility. If they (managers) want to lord over the process and do work for work's sake, then they should write out requirements that say "thou shalt commit one line of code by X date". It just comes down to the individuals doing the 'management' being lazy if they're in this position expecting their 'reports' to drop everything and context switch to a meeting when they can't be arsed to do the managing.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
    > If there's no deliverable and no visibility, that's a failure of management, either to define the deliverable to a more granular extent where an update could cover the progress, even if async, which would also fix not having visibility. A developer piping up async and saying 'no updates, still working' is still an update and gives visibility. That's really the bare minimum that a developer can say and still get away with when you have a lenient manager. HN tends to take the most adversarial take on managers possible, but it's not always necessary. But, when you've worn both hats (manager and managed), sometimes employees simply don't want to do much work. Again, you can say "that's a management problem", but some people are bad actors and are very good at hiding it in "corporate speak". The internet is full of stories of coasting --- I can even attest to doing it many times and easily getting away with it. Getting someone in a room, or on camera, and actually running through their work can cut through a lot of bullshit and bullshitters. Some developers think "coding" takes precedence over the business -- but some of their "coding" time is completely useless to the business perspective. It seems crazy to insist that managers have no stake in trying to figure out if that's the case. Sometimes you also need to have a meeting because in an async setting some people have no idea what they're doing. Even with clear goals and deliverables, stuff can easily fall through the cracks.
RajT88 3y ago
> Insist on asynchronous communication. Not disagreeing, but you've also got to be mindful of scenarios where there is something which needs to be hashed out and neither party fully owns the thing. If you don't nip it in the bud by getting those people together on a call or in the room together, you can end up with a lot of unnecessary back and forth. Getting people in the room together is particularly effective for such cases.
- theideaofcoffee 3y ago
  If it takes corralling people into a meeting and interrupting their day to 'hash out' some aspect of a project, then it's a management failure where the importance of this particular thing wasn't communicated or emphasized before and how the individuals' inputs matter. If everyone understands how this project, regardless of the parties' full ownership or not, or whatever contributes to success because there was clear communication to that fact then people might be more inclined to resolve the issue sooner, even if comms are async. I see it like this: people are going back and forth over email and waffling then it's probably not that important, why should it be any different in person aside from the fact they're performing for management.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    > then it's a management failure where the importance of this particular thing wasn't communicated or emphasized before and how the individuals' inputs matter. Yes. And you can't fix those as an IC, so you just have to work around them. This is like complaining about the direction of the company and advising to fix the root cause of whatever corporate drama - not wrong, just not helpful or practical advice. > why should it be any different in person aside from the fact they're performing for management. There's many reasons why in-person is more effective: - Fewer distractions - More emotional investment in the discussion (the same dynamic where people are more polite in person, but less so on internet forums) - More "skin in the game" by making more of an effort to show up
    - theideaofcoffee 3y ago
ASalazarMX 3y ago
> There are some who believe that meetings are work. Meetings are work. Not practical work, but management work, which is very valuable to coordinate and unify efforts. I agree, though, that there are people who like meetings for meetings's sake, and those waste eveyone's time. In my experience, they're usually executives with little practical background. They use meetings primarily for politics/socialization, and have the power to summon as many meetings as they wish.
ebiester 3y ago
It isn't that meetings are or aren't work: it's that asynchronous communication takes more time in total as well as more calendar time. If I need a series of five if-then questions to put together a proposal, and each round trip takes half a day, then we have both already wasted a half hour over what would have taken ten minutes to resolve.

efitz 3y ago

There are some who believe that meetings never accomplish anything. If those people are in positions of power in an organization, there will be tension with people who use meetings effectively to coordinate, communicate and drive decision making with all stakeholders present.

gustavus 3y ago
I've seen this argument often but I'd guess 50-75% of the meetings in my organization could've been handled in an email. Often times the only reason we have a meeting in the first place instead of an email is because of the politics around things, which to me is a sign of inefficiency in the 1st place.
- ASalazarMX 3y ago
  I've seen that different teams have different priorities, and while emails do help avoid many meetings, there's nothing like an in-person meeting to coordinate efforts. Also, the more your meeting goes beyong half an hour, the less fruitful it becomes. Half-hour meetings are the most productive, one-hour meetings are understandable, multi-hour meetings are dreadful.
whoknowsidont 3y ago
>There are some who believe that meetings never accomplish anything. No there aren't. If you are consistently getting push backs on meetings within your org it's not that the teams or IC's believe that meetings are useless (what a silly thing to say) it's a sign that they don't have faith in the organization structure to concretely do anything with the information or provide valuable input. If you try to setup a meeting and get push back you should _immediately_ ask yourself why the other person feels that way about the people involved or even yourself.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > No there aren't. Reading other comments in this thread will reveal a lot of them. :) I've worked remote and across time zones for a while. I've encountered a few too many engineers who think any form of meeting or even communication is an unnecessary burden. They just want a queue of perfectly defined tickets to pull from and nobody to bother them until it's done at whatever pace they feel like working that week. Strangely, being in a low-meeting company seems to make it worse, because meetings are so few and far between that some people get unreasonably upset when their week goes from 1 meeting to 2 meetings because we dared double their meeting load this week.
  - robocat 3y ago
    > unreasonably upset I suspect some people have a conditioned pathological response to meetings - µPTSD. Watch a bit of the GitLab Meeting Similator video and who could retain their sanity if they must participate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOqgRiNMVqg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOqgRiNMVqg Watch the lady in the bottom panel struggle to look appropriately interested (or am I just projecting?).
michaelcampbell 3y ago
> There are some who believe that meetings never accomplish anything. No more than those that believe every last one is 100% useful.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ungreased0675 3y ago
The tension is the desired outcome. I know meetings are useful and necessary, but if I start with the extreme position of “all meetings are worthless productivity leeches” it changes the conversation from justifying changing meetings to meetings having to justify their existence. Meetings should have to fight for their lives, not the other way around.

88913527 3y ago

Leaders have a responsibility to ensure their teams deliver. When the teams agree to async communication --and the channels remain silent-- where is the accountability when there is no deliverable and no visibility into the scenario that led to no output? To be clear, this doesn't mean 100% sync. But a 10 minute daily sync can ensure the team is focused on producing something of business value. Maximal autonomy within some guardrails keeps the ICs and management at their best.

marcinzm 3y ago
> Leaders have a responsibility to ensure their teams deliver. When the teams agree to async communication --and the channels remain silent-- where is the accountability when there is no deliverable and no visibility into the scenario that led to no output? A good leader then talks to the team as the professional adults they are to understand why there isn't communication at the cadence that was agreed upon and discusses why such communication is important.
theideaofcoffee 3y ago
If there's no deliverable and no visibility, that's a failure of management, either to define the deliverable to a more granular extent where an update could cover the progress, even if async, which would also fix not having visibility. A developer piping up async and saying 'no updates, still working' is still an update and gives visibility. If they (managers) want to lord over the process and do work for work's sake, then they should write out requirements that say "thou shalt commit one line of code by X date". It just comes down to the individuals doing the 'management' being lazy if they're in this position expecting their 'reports' to drop everything and context switch to a meeting when they can't be arsed to do the managing.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
  > If there's no deliverable and no visibility, that's a failure of management, either to define the deliverable to a more granular extent where an update could cover the progress, even if async, which would also fix not having visibility. A developer piping up async and saying 'no updates, still working' is still an update and gives visibility. That's really the bare minimum that a developer can say and still get away with when you have a lenient manager. HN tends to take the most adversarial take on managers possible, but it's not always necessary. But, when you've worn both hats (manager and managed), sometimes employees simply don't want to do much work. Again, you can say "that's a management problem", but some people are bad actors and are very good at hiding it in "corporate speak". The internet is full of stories of coasting --- I can even attest to doing it many times and easily getting away with it. Getting someone in a room, or on camera, and actually running through their work can cut through a lot of bullshit and bullshitters. Some developers think "coding" takes precedence over the business -- but some of their "coding" time is completely useless to the business perspective. It seems crazy to insist that managers have no stake in trying to figure out if that's the case. Sometimes you also need to have a meeting because in an async setting some people have no idea what they're doing. Even with clear goals and deliverables, stuff can easily fall through the cracks.

RajT88 3y ago

> Insist on asynchronous communication. Not disagreeing, but you've also got to be mindful of scenarios where there is something which needs to be hashed out and neither party fully owns the thing. If you don't nip it in the bud by getting those people together on a call or in the room together, you can end up with a lot of unnecessary back and forth. Getting people in the room together is particularly effective for such cases.

theideaofcoffee 3y ago
If it takes corralling people into a meeting and interrupting their day to 'hash out' some aspect of a project, then it's a management failure where the importance of this particular thing wasn't communicated or emphasized before and how the individuals' inputs matter. If everyone understands how this project, regardless of the parties' full ownership or not, or whatever contributes to success because there was clear communication to that fact then people might be more inclined to resolve the issue sooner, even if comms are async. I see it like this: people are going back and forth over email and waffling then it's probably not that important, why should it be any different in person aside from the fact they're performing for management.
- RajT88 3y ago
  > then it's a management failure where the importance of this particular thing wasn't communicated or emphasized before and how the individuals' inputs matter. Yes. And you can't fix those as an IC, so you just have to work around them. This is like complaining about the direction of the company and advising to fix the root cause of whatever corporate drama - not wrong, just not helpful or practical advice. > why should it be any different in person aside from the fact they're performing for management. There's many reasons why in-person is more effective: - Fewer distractions - More emotional investment in the discussion (the same dynamic where people are more polite in person, but less so on internet forums) - More "skin in the game" by making more of an effort to show up
  - theideaofcoffee 3y ago

ASalazarMX 3y ago

> There are some who believe that meetings are work. Meetings are work. Not practical work, but management work, which is very valuable to coordinate and unify efforts. I agree, though, that there are people who like meetings for meetings's sake, and those waste eveyone's time. In my experience, they're usually executives with little practical background. They use meetings primarily for politics/socialization, and have the power to summon as many meetings as they wish.

ebiester 3y ago

It isn't that meetings are or aren't work: it's that asynchronous communication takes more time in total as well as more calendar time. If I need a series of five if-then questions to put together a proposal, and each round trip takes half a day, then we have both already wasted a half hour over what would have taken ten minutes to resolve.