Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#21

Post by Bluepacsky »

_fool wrote: post #12

These are probably the two best interesting aka "seemingly not in wide use" ideas we've tried, with great results: - create a culture of actually RSVP'ing for meetings (yes or no!) so that people know who will be in a call and you don't waste 5 minutes wondering if X will be joining or if anyone will be joining at all. Pairs best with a culture of actually being on time for meetings and ending on time (so you can all…

I really appreciate the second point and the mentioned ideas! That is great advise. I think having everybody write status updates in advance can be a great idea but how do you make sure that does not turn out to be more work than just sharing those updates verbally in the meeting?

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#23

Post by Bluepacsky »

alach11 wrote: post #16
n4r9 wrote: post #11

Some tips I've been learning: - Be ruthless about when you need to have a meeting. Its generally only if you need three or more decision-makers to come to a consensus on a strategy to solve some problem. - Be ruthless about who you invite; it's usually only people who have something explicitly to contribute or who you know wish to be included. - One person leading/driving the discussion, making sure to keep things on…

This comment has it all. A lot of other folks are missing the importance of a follow-up email. I always send a follow-up with notes/conclusions and action items assigned to people. Too often I’ve attended meetings that might have well never happened because whatever got discussed was forgotten a month later and another meeting was held to discuss the same thing.

The point about meetings just being forgotten is a good point! I think that happens too often to me as well. I will try to do this in the future! It seems like that would be a good standard to follow for everyone.

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#24

Post by Minor49er »

>How do you handle meeting feedback for meetings by others to make sure it is not just a random meeting with talking, no agenda, no clear outcomes and mainly information sharing?

Easy. (Or at least easier said than done.) Only initiate/attend a meeting if one or more of these things are clearly defined before the meeting even takes place. It can be helpful to approach it like you would a ticket or a to-do at work: identify what the completion criteria is and timebox it, then assign it out or invite people to it who are needed for its success.

Another thing to keep in mind is the hierarchy of your organization. This can reduce the chances of inviting too many or the wrong people. For instance, if a product manager wants to meet about a small upcoming project, they probably don't have to invite the entire development team. Rather, they should invite the lead and have the lead forward the invitation to whoever might be working on it within the dev team.

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#26

Post by RRL »

cgb223 wrote: post #6

Product Manager here, I set a lot of meetings. Basically make sure there’s a very clear goal for the meeting and very clear bounds on what is being discussed. For me, I put an agenda in every meeting invite I send out with: 1. The purpose of the meeting 2. Bullet points on the things to consider 3. The end goal. What is the point we stop discussing Part of it is also keeping people talking about relevant things. It’s…

Same same. I feel your points really communicate to the attendees that you value their time and input.

I can't stand meetings with no purpose/agenda/end goals. In my experience they grind decision making to a halt, increase interoffice politics/shenanigangs, and we end up building worse things because we have spent so much time in worthless meetings/debating about worthless meetings that we don't have time to actually build a good solution.

It really starts at the top. If stakeholders are pushing points 1, 2, 3, then the incentives organizationally are going to change and you'll end up with productive meetings as an outcome. If they're the type that are, "The agenda is in the meeting title! (Q2 sales checkin)" Then you'll always get unsatisfactory results.

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#27

Post by Bluepacsky »

unethical_ban wrote: post #14
contingencies wrote: post #3

Run less or no meetings. If you have to run meetings, consider the option to temporarily institute an approval process by senior management whereby the thesis for any meeting (proposed agenda, attendees, etc.) is first proposed in private. Then senior management has the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback. This alone will force those convening to think twice. If necessary, quantify the cost of the meeting…

This is nuts. Having management approve meetings? How about "learn to communicate: decline unnecessary meetings and figure out how to reconcile disagreements".

That is true. I think many engineers would feel less empowered if approval for meetings was needed. I think that is not feasible.

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#28

Post by xiphias2 »

,, people just join because they are afraid that they miss information if they don't''

Meetings shouldn't be the way to communicate information, it should be done to make decision or to socialize. Emails are the way to communicate information much more effectively. Have people take meeting notes and email it at least.

Re: Ask HN: How do you run better meetings?

#29

Post by probablypower »

n4r9 wrote: post #11

Some tips I've been learning: - Be ruthless about when you need to have a meeting. Its generally only if you need three or more decision-makers to come to a consensus on a strategy to solve some problem. - Be ruthless about who you invite; it's usually only people who have something explicitly to contribute or who you know wish to be included. - One person leading/driving the discussion, making sure to keep things on…

This basically touches all the points that I came here to write, except I want to add:

- Check-in: Give each attendee 10-30s to just say how they're feeling, either in general or about the topic. This can do a lot to make individuals more likely to engage in the meeting, but also to help you assess the mindset of those attending and anticipate issues.

- Framing: Beyond having a defined agenda and goal, it is also important to establish some 'rules' early on. For example "If I feel we are off agenda, I will interrupt and ask that we freeze the discussion until the end of the meeting, if we have time left".

- Check-out: It is important that you don't equate silence to mean acceptance. Sometimes people will disagree with the results but refrain from raising the point as they feel alienated in the meeting or don't want to 'open it back up'. By asking people to each explicitly state if they're happy with the meeting results or if they feel some tension, you can get hints at where these issues may be.

These points may seem soft, but they are honestly incredibly valuable I find. They've saved me a lot of time with a few people who would otherwise stay silent then send me a 'derailing' email a week or two later.

Post reply on HN