A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings • Hacker News Board

Re: A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings

#21

Post by bane » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 2:40 PM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #14

bane wrote: post #7

I've found that the person running a meeting really defines the success/utility of a meeting. Some bad practices I've learned from: a) Instead of making a simple decision, plan a meeting, at that meeting plan other meetings. This Dilbert pointy haired boss-style really happened at a very large corporation I once worked at. I actually thought it was a joke the first few times it happened. Ultimately the simple decisio…

> Open actions need to be brought up again, this time with a note that it's a repeat x number of times. The more times it repeats, the higher up in priority it goes. If it doesn't move up in priority, it's probably not real anyway and shouldn't have been an action to start with Hey, I wish I'd known about this one. I had items that lingered for weeks, sometimes. Maybe a rule like "4 repeats and it gets dropped". That…

> Hey, I wish I'd known about this one. I had items that lingered for weeks, sometimes. Maybe a rule like "4 repeats and it gets dropped". That said, a countervailing rule of thumb is that every action belongs to someone. If they get too many repeats, it's time to find out why.

Exactly on all points.

I've found that repeatedly lingering issues point to deep organizational dysfunction. Elevating the priority or dropping it (up or out) can be a forcing function to take care of it if it's real. Making something high priority, even if it really isn't puts pressure on the doers -- they don't want to be the one who dropped the ball on a level-1 issue that's coming up over and over again. And everything has a due date, even if it's open ended...set a tone of work getting accomplished in a reasonable time frame and not dragging on even without a set due date.

If you drop it and it's actually real, it'll be brought up later when it matters to somebody.

> I agree with c), that meeting techniques can have a dark side...the utility of the fusty old rules...It's a spectrum.

I'm hard pressed to find ways to agree with you more :)

Re: A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings

#22

Post by bane » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 2:51 PM UTC

edent wrote: post #17

I use a meeting ticker sometimes - one like this: http://tobytripp.github.io/meeting-ticker/ Set a low ball hourly rate - so £50 (depending on where you are and who you're with) so that people suspect the meeting actually costs more. When it comes to the end of the meeting, you say "Did this meeting produce £376.42 worth of value for the company?" If the answer is "yes" - you're doing something right. If the answer i…

Ha! This is a good idea. Actually I'd count it by the employee pay/cost being soaked up in the meeting instead of an arbitrary rate. So in your case say the average per hour cost to the company for an employee is £50, and there are 10 people in the meeting for an hour, that meeting cost the company £500. It can keep meeting sizes small as a motivator to keep costs low ;)

(I've seen several $20,000-30,000 "meetings" before that accomplished nothing)

Re: A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings

#23

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #10

I like how this rule doesn't do anything at all to 'eliminate useless meetings'. Somehow reading the presentation beforehand makes the meeting more relevant? Most meetings I've been to on a regular basis were pointless not because there was a presentation, but because there were more than 2-4 people in the room.

Surely, if you've read the presentation and the agenda is kept strict and the content isn't relevant then you don't attend the meeting. Or at least you say to your boss - or whoever is demanding attendance - that your attendance is not productive use of your time.

Re: A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings

#24

Post by sliverstorm » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #19

sliverstorm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's yet another kind of meeting; the recurring team meeting. Purpose being to get everybody in the same room to discuss whatever is on people's minds. (This is obviously a type of meeting that needs to be used lightly)

True Story: I got chastised in my annual performance review because I didn't have a scheduled staff meeting for my 5-person team. I've always found meetings like that to be useless, but I guess there was some official policy someone that stated "thou shalt haveth staff meetings".

Personally, I've found they do contribute somewhat to team cohesiveness, and if you have a busy manager it is nice to have guaranteed time with them. Of course, everyone is different, and it may well be truly useless in other companies

Re: A Simple Rule to Eliminate Useless Meetings

#25

Post by anologwintermut » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 10:38 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #7

I've found that the person running a meeting really defines the success/utility of a meeting. Some bad practices I've learned from: a) Instead of making a simple decision, plan a meeting, at that meeting plan other meetings. This Dilbert pointy haired boss-style really happened at a very large corporation I once worked at. I actually thought it was a joke the first few times it happened. Ultimately the simple decisio…

Your bad practices remind me of this:

    when possible, refer all matters to committees, for    
    "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the 
    committees as large and bureaucratic as possible. Hold
    conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
    -- OSS/ CIA Simple Sabotage Field Manual

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/...