October 12, 2012 at 7:21 am
Fortunately where I work we have few corporate or department wide meetings where attendance is required, maybe we'll get that once a month or every three months. There is a weekly team meeting that is kept to the point. It's good for everyone on the team to know what everyone else is working on, because you never know when a team member may leave or step in front of a bus, and then you'll be tasked with taking over their project tasks. Aside from that, there may be a half dozen other meetings, but they are collabortive in nature, typically about some specific issue or change in the requirements, and last no more than 1/2 hour.
I'd hate to work for an organization where people feel compelled to sleep through meetings, and I'd hate to work with team members who don't care enough to stay awake when something important regarding the project is being discussed.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
October 12, 2012 at 7:39 am
dogramone (10/11/2012)
I have a very strict self rule on working from home, I won't. Two key reasons. Firstly as a project manager I feel I need to alwaays be available to help resolve issues. Much easier to co-ordinate things from the office where 60% of the people and resources reside. Secondly I like the seperation I get by keeping home for fun and work for work. Sure work can be fun but home is where I refresh and re-charge. I'm also known as a bit of a ludite and "old school".
Believe me you are not alone. Many managers still feel that way today. This is why working remotely from home is not, and will not be widely accepted in the marketplace anytime soon. Many managers today still feel that working in your robe is not working. It's a strange perception, I know, but I know many that feel that way. They are two totally different environments and as you stated, should be kept that way for a reason. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
October 12, 2012 at 10:25 am
Meetings can be good. However, they need to be short, to the point, make decisions, and not be rambling sessions where everyone gets their say three or four times, a round table, a role call vote and then table it till the next meeting when the same thing happens.
And then there are those wonderful meeting where two do not agree and it is not taken off line but worked out over the next hour and a half with 15 people in the room. And in the end the resolution is that the two agree to disagree and really it is only semantics, and it does not really matter.
But a good short to the point meeting works. And it works very well if there are not too many of them.
M.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
October 12, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Miles Neale (10/12/2012)
Meetings can be good. However, they need to be short, to the point, make decisions, and not be rambling sessions where everyone gets their say three or four times, a round table, a role call vote and then table it till the next meeting when the same thing happens.And then there are those wonderful meeting where two do not agree and it is not taken off line but worked out over the next hour and a half with 15 people in the room. And in the end the resolution is that the two agree to disagree and really it is only semantics, and it does not really matter.
But a good short to the point meeting works. And it works very well if there are not too many of them.
M.
Miles, there are many people in the government sector that do nothing but attend meetings. They don't produce a darn thing and they are still there. It's no small wonder why the government is in the state that it is in today. We have a wide-spread saying in the government sector: "You have 20% of your department doing 80% of the work.". 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
October 12, 2012 at 2:30 pm
TravisDBA (10/12/2012)
Miles Neale (10/12/2012)
Meetings can be good. However, they need to be short, to the point, make decisions, and not be rambling sessions where everyone gets their say three or four times, a round table, a role call vote and then table it till the next meeting when the same thing happens.And then there are those wonderful meeting where two do not agree and it is not taken off line but worked out over the next hour and a half with 15 people in the room. And in the end the resolution is that the two agree to disagree and really it is only semantics, and it does not really matter.
But a good short to the point meeting works. And it works very well if there are not too many of them.
M.
Miles, there are many people in the government sector that do nothing but attend meetings. They don't produce a darn thing and they are still there. It's no small wonder why the government is in the state that it is in today. We have a wide-spread saying in the government sector: "You have 20% of your department doing 80% of the work.". 😀
When it comes to Congress passing new laws and regulations, I wish they were less productive.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
October 12, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Got to agree with you there Eric. In the immortal words of Will Rogers: "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." Man, that is more true today than ever. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
October 16, 2012 at 8:35 am
TravisDBA (10/12/2012)
Miles Neale (10/12/2012)
Meetings can be good. However, they need to be short, to the point, make decisions, and not be rambling sessions where everyone gets their say three or four times, a round table, a role call vote and then table it till the next meeting when the same thing happens.And then there are those wonderful meeting where two do not agree and it is not taken off line but worked out over the next hour and a half with 15 people in the room. And in the end the resolution is that the two agree to disagree and really it is only semantics, and it does not really matter.
But a good short to the point meeting works. And it works very well if there are not too many of them.
M.
TBF I've worked in Government and for a few large organisations, and you get the same thing. There are other advantages to large organisations with regards to resources etc, which do apply to Governments as well. But there is always extra bureaucracy. Most of it pointless.
Did have one manager in the Civil Service, though, who seemed to think one of her staff didn't have much to do purely because he didn't go to many meetings 😉
Miles, there are many people in the government sector that do nothing but attend meetings. They don't produce a darn thing and they are still there. It's no small wonder why the government is in the state that it is in today. We have a wide-spread saying in the government sector: "You have 20% of your department doing 80% of the work.". 😀
October 17, 2012 at 9:56 am
I had never considered scheduling a block of time for interruptions by coworkers. Interesting concept. I'm not sure I could do that. But I agree that many times it would sure be nice to not be interrupted when in the middle of something intense.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
October 17, 2012 at 10:13 am
SQLRNNR (10/17/2012)
I had never considered scheduling a block of time for interruptions by coworkers. Interesting concept. I'm not sure I could do that. But I agree that many times it would sure be nice to not be interrupted when in the middle of something intense.
Where I work, we use Microsoft Lync (formerly knows as Microsoft Communicator) for sending instant messages and group conversations. We can set our status 'Available', 'Away', etc. When we schedule a meeting or appointment in Outlook, it automatically shows our status during as 'Busy' during that time block, and we can also set status to 'Do Not Disturb' to let everyone know we've got our head down working on some issue, so please just send email instead of dropping by our desk.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
October 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
Eric M Russell (10/17/2012)
SQLRNNR (10/17/2012)
I had never considered scheduling a block of time for interruptions by coworkers. Interesting concept. I'm not sure I could do that. But I agree that many times it would sure be nice to not be interrupted when in the middle of something intense.Where I work, we use Microsoft Lync (formerly knows as Microsoft Communicator) for sending instant messages and group conversations. We can set our status 'Available', 'Away', etc. When we schedule a meeting or appointment in Outlook, it automatically shows our status during as 'Busy' during that time block, and we can also set status to 'Do Not Disturb' to let everyone know we've got our head down working on some issue, so please just send email instead of dropping by our desk.
We use that MS product as well and I have done the same thing, put a Do Not Disturb sign on Microsoft Lync and I can tell you from experience it has absolutely no effect at all. People are people, and little red dots next to your name in Outlook or MS Lync are not going to stop them from interrupting you, and expecting you to drop everything and service their needs. That's almost laughable. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
October 27, 2016 at 2:27 am
For me the amount of meetings and interruptions I'm subjected to can be what ultimately decides if I stay in a job.
Last job prior to current gig: had to have 1-1 meetings with team and manager each every 2 weeks = 4 meetings per 2 weeks, daily team stand up, quarterly team, tech team, senior tech team meetings, monthly senior manager meetings, fortnightly project meetings. On top of this I had to have 2 clinic times a week where people could approach me about anything, which one person adhered to, and everyone else just came up to me when they felt like it. Also handled incoming calls from 2x external support companies. I had a Do Not Disturb sign which I was allowed to use occasionally but was encouraged not to do so because "IT should be approachable". I campaigned for 2 years before we were allowed to use headphones in the office.
Current job: One daily stand up, restrospectives after major releases. No desk phone. Headphones allowed but I'm finding I don't need them here.
October 27, 2016 at 2:34 am
A part of the problem is perception — in some companies and with some people, your status is measured by the number of meetings you have. One is obviously (ahem) more important when people report to you and share information with you. Short meetings, in my experience, are much more efficient than long ones.
I have about 5 scheduled meetings a month and many, many informal meetings. If someone asks me to do a report for them, I will usually have a few questions about it. These are usually answered quickly. It seems pointless to me to organise a meeting room, when I can ask the person in question. This involves interruptions, to be sure, but both of our jobs involve doing many things for many people. Interruptions, when they involve work, are a normal part of the day. And when there is too much work or two jobs that are especially urgent, I send the two people with the work to be done to discuss it amongst themselves whose work I will do first. If something is urgent, I can drop everything and get it done, provided that it rarely occurs.
That being said, if I am doing doing something that requires my utmost concentration, I will let people know that I am not to be disturbed and ask colleagues to handle any questions that come my way.
Finally, one needs to take a little break every hour or so (by 'little', I mean a few minutes). As a part of this break, I rather walk to people's desks than call them or I might join (with my coffee) a co-worker having a smoke outside.
October 27, 2016 at 2:55 am
Sometimes I don't think people realise that you are only wasting time if it reduces overall productivity. If a meeting is boring and is keeping you from your work but the project achieves more, quicker then the meeting was worthwhile. No matter how painfully wasteful it might have seemed.
The same can be said with personal phone calls. I have worked with people who have had an issue to deal with but as they weren't allowed to make a call they sat there attempting to work but making no progress instead of making the 5-10 minute call(s) and then being relaxed enough to move on and concentrate on the work at hand.
As for requiring headphones in a noisy office, I have been known to flaunt no headphone policies and have yet to be challenged.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
October 27, 2016 at 6:47 am
I'm old school. I find working at home a drawback to both the person doing it and others. It's almost as bad as contracting your development with programmers in a foreign country (worthless). A face-to-face conversation is so much more productive than trying to deal with someone off site. If I have a quick question (that may lead into some important enlightenment) it only takes a moment to turn in my chair and talk. The email/phone/message route just doesn't cut it. I can scratch someone quickly on a piece of paper to explain what I'm talking about, or move up to their screen or them to mine to see an explanation, all things quite awkward when the person is not there. We have often had conversations that another programmer overhears and jumps in to correct a misunderstanding that would never have been caught had that other person been home. Sure work at home if you want. You can take the dog out when it whines or grab a drink or two or three from the fridge, answer the front door, go get the mail. You can all sorts of things which you would never at work, and end up working less, being less effective, and certainly less helpful to others. That's my take on it.
October 27, 2016 at 7:45 am
Miles Neale (10/12/2012)
Meetings can be good. However, they need to be short, to the point, make decisions, and not be rambling sessions where everyone gets their say three or four times, a round table, a role call vote and then table it till the next meeting when the same thing happens.And then there are those wonderful meeting where two do not agree and it is not taken off line but worked out over the next hour and a half with 15 people in the room. And in the end the resolution is that the two agree to disagree and really it is only semantics, and it does not really matter.
But a good short to the point meeting works. And it works very well if there are not too many of them.
M.
I think this points out some of the biggest problems with meetings. I can't tell you how many meetings I've been scheduled for, that didn't have an agenda, didn't have someone acting as the facilitator of the meeting to ensure conversations stayed on track, and didn't properly record questions brought up, decisions made, and other results of the meeting.
You need an agenda so people can prepare for the meeting, too often people come to meetings unprepared, and either try to wing it or say "I don't know", which results in more meetings to discuss the same topics again. If someone isn't responsible for a facilitator role, attendees may be reluctant to try to keep conversations in line. If you don't track outstanding questions and decisions made, then they may be forgotten resulting in... more meetings! :sick:
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply