7 ms·

What would an efficient and trustworthy meeting culture look like?

• ragebol 1y ago
  Seems like solid advice indeed, I'm going to try and stick to these guidelines, too often meetings could have been an e-mail or bit of text and take too long.
• Msurrow 1y ago
  This seems good from the attendie’s point of view. I would love a similar post on the culture for calling meetings. There are too many “I don’t want to make an effort to understand/solve issue X so I’ll just create a meeting with everyone who might have an interest so we can all spend 1h talking about if the issue is an issue at all, and if it’s an issue what do we do about it”.. makes me so tired.
  • gonzo41 1y ago
    Don't knock it. I've worked in places where they just ignore problems and don't have meetings. It's worse. At least in your example people are moving towards the issue
• taherchhabra 1y ago
  At my ex employer, every employee had an hourly rate in the system, I had thought of pulling the rates from the internal system into Microsoft teams, to display the cost of every meeting.
  • maxclark 1y ago
    Shopify did this - it’s frightening when you see the numbers across your entire org
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
      That feels like it might have perverse incentives if it were formally tracked. On the other hand, as a low level grunt, I would enjoy having some quantitative metrics about the topic. Who acts like this is a game trying to get the high score? Depending on how it was implemented, might also be possible to unblind people’s salary. A big no-no for a big corporation where there might be laughable pay disparity.
  • vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    I (unsuccesfully) tried to make that point before: "You just spent $2000 of paid employee time for a meeting that achieved nothing but we don't have the money to spend $1000 on licenses for X". Didn't work
  • lawlorino 1y ago
    I like this. To add: It serves as a strict lower bound, since it doesn’t account for the hidden cost of context switching etc.
  • theshrike79 1y ago
    We thought about this in 2002 already :) "Meeting cost calculator" where the cost of the meeting would tick up in real time on the wall. IIRC the idea was to have everyone tap their keyfob on a reader and it'd get everyone's hourly salary from a database and start counting the price by the minute.
• judge123 1y ago
  this feels like advice for the person running the meeting, not the one being dragged into it. I'm just picturing myself telling my boss "Sorry, this meeting doesn't have a clear goal, so I'm dropping off." Anyone actually have the guts to do this when you're not the senior person in the room?
  • Tempest1981 1y ago
    I've definitely done that, and afterwards my boss was approving. (I just leave, no need to say why at the time.) But we've worked together for several years, so he trusts my judgment.
  • windward 1y ago
    Like you I couldn't imagine saying this to my boss. On the other hand, I could imagine saying it at some meetings at a previous employer, much larger, with many more inter-departmental box-ticking meetings. Meeting culture is something that varies hugely between companies and industries and sectors. IMO that means that advice like this has limited utility unless you're aware of the differences. There are a few topics like this. If the person you'd be telling it to is your boss, you probably don't have much sway to change the culture beyond regular feedback loops.
  • alex_duf 1y ago
    I've done that both in France and the UK. Nothing happen and I got some time back
  • 9dev 1y ago
    Can't speak for your boss, but I definitely am sometimes a few abstraction layers further up in concepts than the ICs on the team, and it's a lot more frustrating to realise the others don't really know what I'm getting at because I didn't create clear enough goals than getting that feedback right away. People in leadership usually get there because they value time and efficiency, and if you don't spin that as "your agenda is trash" but "I cannot contribute to this meeting and would like to pursue my other tasks", I doubt they will be mad at you. It can also be worth it to bring this up with your team and establish a meeting culture, as suggested in TFA. That way, you can discuss this openly and everyone has a shared understanding of what is okay.
• Etheryte 1y ago
  I think this misses the mark for why people join. We're talking about a professional setting here, I'm coming to your meeting because you invited me to join, not because of fear of missing out (on what?). All the points given in the article are good, but it misses the most important one: if you're hosting a meeting, only invite people who MUST [0] be there. If the meeting could still take place and be useful without someone, don't invite them just to listen in. If you want, shoot an email to a mailing list or post in Slack about it, but don't invite people just because. [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
  • suslik 1y ago
    > if you're hosting a meeting, only invite people who MUST [0] be there. If the meeting could still take place and be useful without someone, don't invite them just to listen in. I don't think this advice is generic - there can be different perspectives here. In a managerial role in a large corpo, doing what could be crudely characterized as office politics, I often have this sort of FOMO - missing out on new initiatives, budgets and projects which would be good for the team; or being unable to prevent others dumping hot potatoes onto us; or just not knowing what is brewing behind the scenes within the company. To a degree, I have to do this so that the technical guys don't have to. My job, really, is to be invited to as many meeting as I can. I can then ditch the ones I don't think would be useful. Of course, often I sit on meetings that are a complete waste of time - but that is an occupational risk. I don't find these frustrating - they allow me to relax a bit, do my email, learn more about people in the meeting, or just practice my note taking.
    • Etheryte 1y ago
      This is a good point and you're right. My take was too narrow based on the types of companies I've been lucky enough to work at.
  • blitzar 1y ago
    > because of fear of missing out (on what?) Money, exposure, promotion, money. People who attend more meetings and do less work get higher pay rises and promoted faster. They are also far less likely to be included in rounds of layoffs given their importance to the organisation.
• ryanbigg 1y ago
  Great advice here! I especially like the idea of 50 minute meetings. I’ve been lightly enforcing a rule of my own too: “no agenda, no attenda”
• keiferski 1y ago
  First, a meeting is primarily not a way to spread knowledge. Knowledge should be spread in a format that is more resilient to time than our memories (which are surprisingly untrustworthy over even tiny time scales). For example; written text. The greatest benefit of text is that it can be asynchronously consumed, multiple times. Meetings are primarily for two things: I think this makes sense in the abstract but not always in practice. I have been in many long back-and-forth Slack conversations explaining some piece of knowledge that would be better as a 20 minute meeting. And so I think a better "mental model" of meetings might be functionally the same as human communication in general: for smaller and faster-acting groups, live communication (meetings) is often more efficient than writing. Especially when the team is small and needs to act quickly, because then the time cost of 5-20% of your manpower spending an hour to write out something that takes 10 minutes to explain via a video meeting walkthrough is not optimal. But the more people your group has, the more you'll need to shift to a text-based communication method. (This is also why I think remote work makes sense in many contexts, but does somewhat become less efficient in smaller, fast-moving companies. Unless you replace the in-person ad hoc meeting with a rapid on-demand meeting culture, you'll have some inefficiencies and move slower.) I have seen some attempts to use AI transcription bots as an attempt to square the circle here and commit ephemeral meeting information into durable text information, and in general they aren't too bad actually.
  • 9dev 1y ago
    The value of written notes really adds up over time, though. Once a meeting is over, it's over; a Slack conversation is preserved for new hires or absentees or yourself when you return to it after your vacation. I agree though, for a small team to build a shared understanding and move quickly, just having a chat together is definitely more efficient. I don't think the ideas lined out here apply to that organisation size, however.
    • rightbyte 1y ago
      I have never searched old chats for anything but passwords, network folder paths and license keys. Going back to some conversation on some topic and give it to the new guy, does it happen?
• pyman 1y ago
  Having an agenda and a moderator is not enough. What meetings also need is: 1. Context: Why are we here? What's the problem we're solving? 2. Actions: What decisions did we make? What are the next steps? 3. Follow-up: Who's doing what and by when? Put this in a shared doc, a wiki, anywhere people can find it. If you can't see it, you can track it and you can't measure the outcome. Just like developers measure the outcome of their planning and project meetings every sprint, managers and execs should do the same. In theory, two things will happen once outcomes are tracked: Some managers will realise their meetings produce nothing useful, so they'll send fewer invites. And the company will shift focus from output to outcomes, which means fewer meetings and more real work getting done. In practice, it depends on who you hire. People with less knowledge, experience, or agency tend to rely on meetings more than others.
• shenberg 1y ago
  The reality of meetings in most places I've seen is that key stakeholders have already formed an opinion beforehand, the meeting is a place to disseminate decisions that have already been made and align the organization.
• pjc50 1y ago
  Agenda + minutes, in however minimal a form, is crucial. A meeting with no minutes and no agenda and a warm drink is just a tea party. Not that that doesn't have a role in organizations, but it shouldn't dominate your time. Most standups are therefore tea parties. A previous boss of mine even used to bring biscuits, which was nice. It serves the role of reminding everyone that each other exists and are collaborating as a team, which occasionally needs reinforcement. It's an RAF forums in-joke that being invited to a "meeting without biscuits" means you are going to be reprimanded. Edit: good comment in this thread on the role of middle management meetings being intrinsically social/political: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44708660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44708660
  • Cthulhu_ 1y ago
    That's a good analogy / way to think about it, the stand-up should be more of a social call anyway (especially for remote work) to check in with each other and whatever they're working on, but anything in-depth should be done outside of it.
    • skeeter2020 1y ago
      There's a lot of team culture going on here. I manage 6 scrum teams and attend each standup a few times a week. Some are very short and to the point; that's what the team wants. A few start with movie trivia or a silly question which takes ~5 minutes. One team spends 30 minutes and it's their daily social time for the ~22 minutes after updates. I do like having an adult (rarely me!) in the room who shuts down OT rabbit holes and redirect to appropriate time & place. These are all remote, geo-distributed teams who only see each other in person about once per year.
  • skeeter2020 1y ago
    >> "meeting without biscuits" I like that (biscuits not the idea of being reprimanded), A former co-worker used to respond in a friendly (but he meant it!) way "no agenda; no attenda"
    • anotherevan 1y ago
• PeterStuer 1y ago
  "Meetings are primarily for two things:" ... "Brainstorming" ..., ... "Making a decision as a group" ... "Secondary" ... "to expand and clarify knowledge" I've said this before, The "engineer's" pov on meetings is that they are an incredibly poor and overused instrument of getting things done and that it is beyond comprehension why "the company" continues to tolerate such expensive nonsense. The manager's (current and aspiring) pov on meetings, especially physical presence meetings, is that they are the most effective way to reinforce the hierarchy/pecking order, sense allegiances and potential defectors, scout opportunities for ascension, or destabilize a rival in public. You might call this 'cynical', but is it really when you lay out the facts? As for the author's specific points: Brainstorming in a meeting is by far the least effective way. It just comes down to the most brazen flaunting their unnuanced opinions in rapid fire while more considerate and intricate reasoning is speed ran and drowned out by loud advocacy. "Group decisions", yes, to a point. Mostly needing 'formal' buy-in to CYA on a decision already made. "If you already knew this would be the (bad) outcome, why did you not speak up at the all hands meeting? Obviously you and everyone else supported this at the time". "to expand and clarify knowledge": That is most often a lecture/presentation with Q&A attached, not a meeting
  • holowoodman 1y ago
    > Brainstorming in a meeting is by far the least effective way. It just comes down to the most brazen flaunting their unnuanced opinions in rapid fire while more considerate and intricate reasoning is speed ran and drowned out by loud advocacy. To fix that, the moderator needs to do what I would call "round-robin brainstorming". Each other participant has to have made exactly one point (in seating order or spontaneously) before the first one can make another one. Everyone has to weigh in, and at least for the first 2 or 3 rounds, the moderator needs to enforce this. Usually by then, everyone has warmed up to the idea that their ideas are not that stupid after all, and participation is more equalized. Edit: about your other points: yes, I agree.
  • izacus 1y ago
    > You might call this 'cynical', but is it really when you lay out the facts? It's not only cynical, it's downright sociopathic if that's the sum of your opinion. Yes, even if you lay down the facts.
• imcritic 1y ago
  Too many mistakes/typos in text. That's a signal for me. A signal, that the author of this shit of an article didn't bother reading his own article before publishing it. This article brings nothing new useful to the table. That's a rehash of someone else's rehash of something they've read somewhere.
  • elcapitan 1y ago
    Maybe adding typos is now used as a positive signal that it wasn't written by a LLM.
• gadders 1y ago
  "This meeting could have been an email." - yeah, if people actually read their emails.
  • matwood 1y ago
    What’s the point when you know there will be a meeting about the topic?
    • gadders 1y ago
      "Dear XX, please tell me if you want to do x or y." No response, resends email 2 or 3 times Sends Invitation "Meeting to Agree whether X or Y." XX replies to original email with an answer Meeting is cancelled
      • 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
        Nothing like the threat of a meeting to inspire action. My former boss wanted to have regular meetings because otherwise it is too easy for cross department projects to fall behind. Nobody prioritizes it, so things will not get done. It (should) cause some amount of embarrassment to go to the weekly meeting for N weeks and say you have still not done X task.
  • vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    "Yeah, if people actually listened and contributed in meetings."
• AndyMcConachie 1y ago
  If there are no consequences for missing a meeting then I know I don't need to be in the meeting.
• holowoodman 1y ago
  Btw, question to the wisdom of HN: Good meetings need minutes. Is there a minutes taking tool that does automatically list the attendants and their join/leave times, allow me to create items like TODO, DECISION, POLL, DISCUSS_MORE, GET_INFO, BLOCKER that will then be tabulated and cross-referenced automatically across more than one meeting? And added to the TODO-lists of participants referenced? Preferrably somewhat independently of the conference tool in use, because that varies a lot around here.
  • danjl 1y ago
    Google Workspace tools, like Google Meet, can automatically transcribe the meeting, and then you can use AI (Gemini) to summarize and generate searchable minutes.
  • Cthulhu_ 1y ago
    Well first off, do you actually need all that? How formal are these meetings? Ours are pretty informal, we (unfortunately) use MS Teams which has an agenda & notes section; people are asked to fill in the agenda if they have any points (which is frustrating because getting there isn't easy or obvious), people can write down notes and action points during the meeting (it's a shared and collaborative effort). You can assign tasks to people's todo lists though, but of course the problem is fragmentation; everyone has their own todo lists, there's Jira for work items, etc.
    • holowoodman 1y ago
      It sounds more formal than it should be. In my mind, it's more about easier searching and retracing steps and decisions. The only really formal thing in there is the list of TODOs and the DECISIONS. The first ones because obviously you need people to do them, and it's easier if they are automatically on a list of theirs and not forgotten. The DECISIONS are important because in retrospect somebody always will want to know the when/how/who/why around them. But you could be right, this might not be the unifying tool for everything but more like number 29 that has never replace the previous 28...
  • jerf 1y ago
• nxpnsv 1y ago
  Rant: I hate brainstorming meetings. A manager who wants to feel like they are doing something invite a mix of one or two experts, a clueless pm, engineers from an unrelated project, and handful of random ones hers. Next, with zero preparation we’re supposed to come up with groundbreaking new ideas. Then there is some voting and finally waiting for a summary or gameplay that’s postponed until the heat death of the universe. Perhaps I will bring cookies next time.
  • nunez 1y ago
    I actually enjoy brainstorming meetings in-person. These actually feel like a "brainstorm" when they're done right. Brainstorming meetings over Zoom, on the other hand...
    • nxpnsv 1y ago
      Ah yes, my hate is mostly for the kind of thing that happens on teams/miro.
  • yencabulator 1y ago
    Sounds like a very poorly run brainstorming session. How to do it right (IMHO): Have several short but rambling hallway conversations about the upcoming topic for 3-4 days before. Take long showers and let your mind wander. Then do the brainstorming session.
• cadamsdotcom 1y ago
  Every meeting can be put in a category: 1:1s. Not really skippable, necessary part of work.. Update meetings: team update, all hands, demos, etc. Record and share out a link . Let people watch in their own time. Optionally do the meeting live (in person, online, etc.) for whoever wants to be physically/digitally present and "watch at 1x speed" Decision meetings. Adhoc only and only when more efficient than taking a decision async (Slack, shared document, etc.) - shouldn't be skipped as these can be crucial for maintaining alignment Planning meetings. Backlog grooming, retro, standup. Pare these back to their component pieces. Make more of the component pieces async over time. Can you groom the backlog purely async? Can standup be a Slack bot? Can retro be part of 1:1s, or another Slack bot? Other teams have found ways! And then call out meetings' categories so your team can cull certain types of meetings.
• theideaofcoffee 1y ago
  People seemed to be brainwashed into thinking that meetings are ... actually necessary. If people can build the Linux kernel without meetings, solely over email, then your $1.99 app, or your project requiring coordinating more than two people can be done the same way. Write it down, debate and argue in text so anyone interested can see what's going on. There's your minutes, your agenda, your invite for future ones right there. Now go back to work (or continue, since you didn't have to leave it in the first place) and stop bothering people. I would praise any leader that has the courage to call the meeting spade a spade knowing they're just corporate-sanctioned babysitting exercises, myth to be discarded.
  • SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    The Linux kernel isn't a business. There's no 2025 revenue numbers they're hoping to hit with some cool new initiative, no high-paying customer threatening to run away to Windows if they don't get suchandsuch new kernel feature by end of quarter. It's a very different problem space, and these kind of business alignment problems are exactly the ones that are harder to resolve through email.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
• sunscream89 1y ago
  I walked into nearly every meeting I ever attended with a list and my working journal. If I have something important to share I bring a few copies of my highlights or just list things about other activities that I care about. I’m an introspective introvert who found this the one time to hear everyone else’s pulse. As for the meeting, each culture will evolve into what works for those involved. Leadership and horizontal stake factors shape how people share their views and listen.
• dogleash 1y ago
  I like the article, but there's a simpler underlying problem. Are people calling meetings to yap, or with clear and concise goals? Yappers do not understand the difference because their meetings are not bereft of articulable utility.
• turnsout 1y ago
  If you want to know about effective meetings, just read Traction and look into EOS.
• nickdothutton 1y ago
  In my experience, a lot of people call a meeting to try and make something happen. The thing _should_ be happening already but the team is not working efficiency in a well-thought-out manner. Rather than figure out what the real problem is with the working practices, or recognising some genuinely novel feature of the situation that is blocking progress, they resort just booking meeting after meeting until somehow it is resolved. I don't attend meetings without an agenda and at least a (sometimes optimistic) list of what the outputs of the meeting should be. Decision on X. Routes of investigation for Y. Outline plan on Z.
• pflenker 1y ago
  I have two separate points to add to this. Point 1. During the pandemic, I learned that meetings also support team cohesion. We experimented with less meetings, but quickly got to a point where we restored at least _some_ meetings to ensure we'd stay functional as a team. This still matters given that we're still working from home 60-80% of the time. Point 2. The meeting host needs to be able to answer the following questions for every invitee, and in turn, every invitee needs to know the answer to the following questions: 1) What is it that this person can _contribute to_ the meeting? 2) What is it that this person can _learn from_ the meeting? With these two questions in mind, everything else becomes less important. For example, if everyone is clear about these two things, the meeting doesn't even need a description (or the other way around: if the answers to these questions are unclear, the meeting description can help answer them)
  • skeeter2020 1y ago
    I agree with these, though the pandemic showed us (at least in my scenarios) online meetins really suck for a lot of the softer, agenda-less type activities. Casual, in-person hangs become AA meetings. It felt like we were sitting around a church basement on metal chairs (with the crappy coffee IRL too) waiting for our turn to speak. One of the good things IME was that scrum or dev-sized teams adopted extended pairing and group sessions; I saw (some) people get a lot better at working in public and sharing knowledge at this level. The OP mentions it at the start, but I will reinforce: meetings suck if you're not prepared; use them to do work (like brain storm or make decisions) not share information. Breaking the "meeting as the big reveal" habit is surprisingly hard, but also solves the "should I attend?" question. To your point #2 a lot of that can be solved without attending if the appropriate prep and follow-up is covered. I don't really like RACI charts, but they do provide some value as a looser guide to thinking through the 2 questions you raise in point 2 above.
• chasd00 1y ago
  I’ve spent probably 60-70% of my day in meetings for the past 5 years. Article makes some good points. An agenda in the invite, moderator+the authority to tell _anyone_ on the call to stfu, minutes, and ending on time. Some things I’d add: 1. Written next steps/follow-ups for what happens after the meeting 2. Due dates for next steps and the consequences for missing due dates 3. A log of decisions made and by whom 4. And just a general observation that if there are more than 10 people in the meeting it should be more like a webinar (one way information flow) vs a discussion with decisions/solutions expected. Edit: 99.9% of my meetings are teams calls. Maybe 20 in person meetings in the past 5 years so consider that when reading my suggestions above.
• duxup 1y ago
  >agenda I once worked at a company that had something like 3 to 5k employees. Everyone had to take an online class (about 8 hours) about effective meetings. Rule 1 was to have an agenda available in the meeting invite. I loved this, it made for FAR more productive meetings. Nobody at the company that I knew of outside myself and one other person had agendas available for our meetings, including leadership. I think setting the culture for good meetings is set by leadership, and most top leaders make themselves exceptions to every rule and that lack of meeting discipline trickles down and so meetings break down overall.
  • throw-qqqqq 1y ago
    I’m in a company of +6k. > Rule 1 was to have an agenda available in the meeting invite Same rule here, but enforced. We are allowed (and encouraged) to cancel or decline invitations without an agenda here. In my experience, it makes a big positive difference, when people have to justify why they need someone’s time and provide a rough frame for the discussion. Much more focused, much more efficient. Fewer meeting where I think “I shouldn’t have joined”.
    • sitkack 1y ago
      Is part of the agenda the outcomes desired, some could be a) gather feedback b) broadcast a new thing c) discuss and decide on next course of action ... It would be nice if agendas explained each persons role in the outcome and what the exit conditions are for the meeting.
      • throw-qqqqq 1y ago
        There are other recommendations around meetings, but the agenda is 100% mandatory. Desired outcomes, minutes of meetings etc. are also part of the default invite template.
    • Scubabear68 1y ago
      Yep. Right now I am living the opposite, consulting to a huge company where anyone can convene huge meetings with no agendas, especially if they are a compliance person, or product person. We have many, many meetings where many people have no idea what the meeting is about, or even worse they will talk about 3 or 4 different topics. They also practice what I call Rumor Driven Development. It is not fun.
• FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
  There are 2 kinds of meetings: 1. Briefings: meant to disseminate marching orders, find any last minute blockers/disagreements, and clarify any differences in interpretation of those marching orders. These should be infrequent, timed, and formal 2. Brainstorms: development meetings to identify, interpret, and develop action plans for problems, products, ideas, whatever. These should be frequent, open-ended, and informal
• xivzgrev 1y ago
  lol our company (1k+ employees) pretty much violates each item on this list We typically don't take minutes. Advance agendas are often non existent. And we definitely put a premium on presenting vs written comms And yes it leads to a lot of FOMO / meetings.
• motohagiography 1y ago
  > It feels rude to leave the meeting before it’s done It's not rude to leave a meeting if there is a competent chair who can set clear beginnings and endings to topics and MC while people enter and exit during transitions.
• neogodless 1y ago
  Working on reading this, the first thing that struck me was that it reflects something that started ~15 years ago at Best Buy. https://slate.com/business/2014/05/best-buys-rowe-experiment-can-results-only-work-environments-actually-be-successful.html https://slate.com/business/2014/05/best-buys-rowe-experiment... "Results-Only Work Environment" (ROWE) encapsulated treating employees as responsible adults, and letting them make decisions about what they needed to do to get work done, including declining any meetings that wouldn't contribute to productivity. See also: https://thetreehousepartners.com/review-rowe-results-work-environment/ https://thetreehousepartners.com/review-rowe-results-work-en... https://www.gorowe.com/ https://www.gorowe.com/
• rwmj 1y ago
  > Knowledge should be spread in a format that is more resilient to time than our memories[...] For example; written text. A worthy goal. However I know several people who are apparently unable (or unwilling) to read anything, and instead default to calling a meeting for any sort of communication or knowledge transfer.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• lenerdenator 1y ago
  Don't go over. Ever. Also keep the meeting to a 50 minute max.
• javier_e06 1y ago
  The human brain hates meetings. It sees people. Tall, short, poorly dressed, overly dressed, it sees the sittings arrangements, someone with the arms crossed, someone is laughing, wait, are we here to talk about technical issues? They want answers now? Why now? Someone is not happy, why? Someone has a question, is Dan, probably something obvious.. That is not how the human brain works. To believe a creative mind is in problem-solving mode when sequestered into 1 hour or 30 minutes social gathering is bizarre. The best technical interactions I've seen happened randomly at a lab when everybody else has left for the day or while at hike chat on a trail during lunch time.
  • stronglikedan 1y ago
    Who is Dan?
    • javier_e06 1y ago
      Nobody knows, he gets invited to every meeting and ask stupid questions, I heard he is a consultant, can't confirm, he works on the other building, corporate.
      • stronglikedan 1y ago
        Well that was quite obvious now that I, Dan, think about it!
    • chias 1y ago
      Someone who is strong, like you.
• yencabulator 1y ago
  One of my rules of thumb is that every single one of the meeting participants should have individually prepared for at least as long as the meeting is, or it's a public announcement or training and not a meeting. If you can't get someone to commit to that, it sounds like you don't need them in the meeting anyway.
• cek 1y ago
  I know this is HN, and my instincts tell me posters here predominately are either ICs or managers "in the small" (line level, or at the most at the scale of the OP, in which the company is ~300). That said, asserting that most meetings are either brainstorming or decision making, is naive. When an organization grows beyond ~100-150 people (Dumbar's Number) the org must metastasize into smaller, "self-contained", orgs that are far less than that number. Once this happens, there is need for meetings that drive accountability, closure, and alignment at scale. For example, monthly or quarterly business reviews. These are NOT brainstorming meetings or decision-making meetings. They are meetings where leadership drives accountability and alignment by ensuring light is shined (in a way visible cross-org) on the right topics for the biz.
• darig 1y ago
  [dead]
• HexPhantom 1y ago
  The best part is shifting the mindset from "everyone should attend everything just in case" to "trust the system, read the minutes, and show up when it actually matters." That alone could rescue hours of deep work time each week.
• JensRantil 1y ago
  Sending a single representative of a team to a meeting is one of favourite hacks. And then have that representative report back.
• nitwit005 1y ago
  At least for the efficient part of this, I've always felt the fix is just a display of the estimated cost of the meeting (perhaps an average or lower bound to avoid revealing pay). The same people who will fuss over $20 lunch expense limits will happily spend thousands on meetings without a thought.