June 21, 2014 at 11:15 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Bad Meetings or Meeting Badly
June 23, 2014 at 2:22 am
Project managers I have dealt with have a tendency to throw out far too many 'just in case' meeting invitations. A 'just in case' invitation of technical staff to long meetings with lots of participants is a huge waste of time. The more specialist the role a person is in, the more pronounced this becomes.
Put bluntly - I hate meetings in which I am not an active participant. They are a complete waste of my time when I could be being productive instead.
My issues with meetings are:
1. The meeting organizer failing to consider who needs to attend and who just needs to be aware of the content of the discussion. A lot of the 'just in case' invites can be avoided if the organizer ensures that potential attendees are supplied with information prior to the meeting or are supplied with the minutes afterwards so that they can add their comments. Not everything needs to be done within the meeting.
2. Lack of focus. Too many meetings try to cover too much ground. They are too long and have too many attendees. Meetings should be kept short and focused. The number of attendees needs to be minimized - the less attendees there are the less chance of the meeting descending into a pointless talking shop where more time is spent clarifying or repeating points that have been made rather than addressing the subject of the meeting. Many longer meetings can be split into a number of shorter ones - each one more subject focused and with a better defined attendance criteria allowing for fewer, more active participants.
3. Meetings are for discussion. Information dissemination can be done in many ways. Too many people who like meetings just organize them for the social aspect - which is why they'll have 2 hour meetings and spend the first half hour on pleasantries. Decisions are best made after reflection - a meeting should not try to be the forum in which both discussion and a consequent decision are made unless time constraints mean it cannot be done any other way.
So while I can understand why a meeting organizer may consider it prudent to invite more people to a meeting than actually need to be there, I feel that every effort should be made to ensure that this is avoided. It will make for more productive meetings and far fewer people feeling their time is being wasted.
June 23, 2014 at 2:48 am
I totally agree with Richard. Focussed meetings allow for a targeted set of participants and are usually shorter. Meetings are what are required when face to face information exchange is required in a collaborative manner i.e. unless you need a discussion then there are more appropriate tools and techniques.
A side effect of too many meetings that I have noticed is the general acceptance that attendees will both be late and just leave when they have another meeting to attend. For me, this begs the question that if they were essential to the meeting being held how can anyone justify the meeting starting or continuing without them?
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 23, 2014 at 3:27 am
A side effect of too many meetings that I have noticed is the general acceptance that attendees will both be late and just leave when they have another meeting to attend.
I've noticed this too. They tend to be the sort of people who spend all day in meetings.
June 23, 2014 at 3:35 am
I think that in many organisations there are a group of people that can be described a 'professional meeting goers'. We all know the type. The more meetings they go to the more important they think they are. It becomes their job. The more meetings they go to the 'busier' they are. The busier they are the more the excuses are rolled out for projects or work streams not moving forward. Also what happens to the work that they are meant to be doing - ie the one that they are hired to do. Other people end up picking up the slack in one way or another.
I do not have a problem with short meetings per se, but I do have a problem with the amount of meetings that seem to happen. I seem to spend a lot of time fending off invitaions to meetings that I do not really need to be at. Worse still I get a 'must attend' invite and find I am only really there for the last agenda item, by which time no one is really interested (half of the people may have left to another meeting!!). I also worry about the amount of meetings I have attended where there are good quality actions that never actually happen. :w00t:
June 23, 2014 at 3:40 am
I think that agendas, minutes and action points are a completely different topic albeit totally related. Nothing worse than a pointless meeting that no one agrees what was accepted and nothing gets done due to it.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 23, 2014 at 6:36 am
Not long ago I spent a year going to meetings. An average week was 30-35 meetings, easily more than a thousand over the course of a year.
Sounds like my definition of purgatory! :ermm:
(I'd rather be coding...)
June 23, 2014 at 7:04 am
While meetings can be so pervasive at times that they prevent any actual work from being done in a day, they are where the work needed is defined, so I don't view them as wrong if they have a goal and stay on task. The pleasantries referred to earlier is a source of real frustration for me because nothing gets done during that time. The only meetings I truly despise are the ones where nothing gets done.
One style of meeting I encounter is run by the "dictator". The organizer has to be open to ideas of how to accomplish the goal and not just be there to dictate to everyone else. Too many times I've gone to a meeting and the organizer (who doesn't understand data) has already made up their mind an is only demanding how things get done, even though the hours allocated aren't anywhere close to what's required. They should be defining what's required and leave the "how" to the people who understand how to accomplish things.
Another style is run by the "generalizer". They're the ones where the organizer talks in vague generalities designed to keep everyone confused and really define nothing. They avoid answering direct questions and won't commit to anything. Afterwards, the generalizer sends out minutes in a lengthy email that still describe nothing, but in their mind, they've done their job and are wondering why the work isn't done yet.
Ironically, the dictator and generalizer are the ones who will later complain about the cost of all the time spent on their project. What's their answer? Why, it's to have another meeting to talk about it. :w00t:
June 23, 2014 at 7:16 am
Most of the meetings I attend I would categorize as "Meeting Badly". There is usually a good reason and a need for the meeting, but the meetings are not organized and typically do not have an agenda or end with an action plan. I think at least these things are needed to "meet well":
1. An agenda - sent out ahead of time, hopefully with the meeting invite.
2. A leader who keeps the meeting on topic.
3. Action items handed out, even if they are just, Ron needs to research A and get back to us and Jane needs to meet with Steve to decide B.
4. A summary of the meeting (minutes) and the action items sent out to the attendees after the meeting.
When I'm the one scheduling the meeting I try to do all 4 with #2 always being the hardest.
I believe it is Kevin Kline who has done several presentations on holding meetings that are very good. I couldn't find them online with a quick search, but I'll see if I can find them online and post a link here. I found them very helpful and have recommended them to many people. Unfortunately I've yet to find the best way to recommend them to the people, I've worked with that needed them the most.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
June 23, 2014 at 7:17 am
I was on one project where there was a weekly two hour status meeting. The meetings generally started fifteen minutes late because she was futzing with her laptop and projector; her meetings also never ended on time.
If it takes a meeting organizer fifteen minutes to set up a computer and projector, set it up fifteen minutes prior to the start of the meeting. Be prepared to start the meeting on time and end the meeting on time; having an agenda helps with having an organized meeting. Holding people hostage while one sets up for the meeting demonstrates a lack of courtesy and respect for the meeting participants.
Her meetings were always a time vampire.
June 23, 2014 at 7:27 am
Jack, I agree with all of that. I tend to get aggravated with poorly managed meetings myself!
June 23, 2014 at 8:23 am
Allright, I'm not the only one to think 99% of the meetings in IT World are pure waste of time and resources.
By the way, never ending meetings and Project Management go along very well: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/risk_comes_from_not_knowing_what_you-re_doing/151206.html
Cheers,
June 23, 2014 at 8:32 am
The bulk of all meetings should be the dial in conference call type. Those who want to crowd out the conversation and debate some narrow topic are free to do so. Meanwhile the remainder can still sit at our desks with a hands free phone set and continue working, dedicating maybe 10% of our mental bandwidth listening for some keyword or remark that will prompt us to jump back in.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
June 23, 2014 at 8:44 am
Eric M Russell (6/23/2014)
The bulk of all meetings should be the dial in conference call type. Those who want to crowd out the conversation and debate some narrow topic are free to do so. Meanwhile the remainder can still sit at our desks with a hands free phone set and continue working, dedicating maybe 10% of our mental bandwidth listening for some keyword or remark that will prompt us to jump back in.
I'd have to disagree Eric. That is curing the symptom, not the cause.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
June 23, 2014 at 8:48 am
Eric M Russell (6/23/2014)
The bulk of all meetings should be the dial in conference call type.
Conference calls definitely have an advantage in that you can get on with other things, but they bring their own problems. Noise from open-plan offices, poor phone connections, people who don't mute their phone when they aren't talking - mixed desk to meeting room calls where side discussions are going on in the room that the people on phones can't hear, etc.
The last of those raises another point about good meeting management - a good meeting organizer will quickly stop side conversations from developing - something that is very common in meetings with too many attendees.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply