4 ms·

Two things, was it something that needed to get done in the next 45 minutes? If not then a meeting is a big hammer for a small problem. If it only took 10 min

Two things, was it something that needed to get done in the next 45 minutes? If not then a meeting is a big hammer for a small problem. If it only took 10 mins spread out over the course of several weeks it is still a time savings. Second sure the discussion part could have been dealt with in a 45 minute meeting but how long did the thinking part take? Perhaps someone tested a few theories before presenting what they thought was the best approach in a short email. You aren't going to do that in a meeting you either end up taking the path of least resistance or you end up in another meeting after everyone has had a chance to go think and try stuff out.

sheepmullet 11y ago
"Two things, was it something that needed to get done in the next 45 minutes? If not then a meeting is a big hammer for a small problem. If it only took 10 mins spread out over the course of several weeks it is still a time savings." Not true. There is an overhead to loading the relevant context into your brain each time you approach the issue. Looking at an issue 10 times over the course of a month is typically going to take much longer "person time" than blocking out the time to look through an issue all at once.