How Chat and Youth Are Killing the Meeting 205
dominique_cimafranca writes "Forbes columnist Dan Woods describes a change in the way some companies handle meetings. Owing to instant messaging and younger tech-savvy CEOs, meeting time has gone down from as much as 30 hours per week to as little as 2 hours per week. Woods proposes ways to make this 'meetingless' management effective."
Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:5, Insightful)
> meeting time has gone down from as much as 30 hours per week to as little as 2 hours per week
Bravo, Bravissimo. Many of us have been aware of time wasted on meetings for quite a while.
Let's be clear, planning is necessary and some meetings still might be needed. I guess almost everybody knows what I am talking about... ;-))
I am sure Dilbert hasn't got the monopoly on this topic but here are some links anyway...
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-11-23/ [dilbert.com]
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2001-12-15/ [dilbert.com]
http://www.revold.no/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Dilbert_MeetingMadness.jpg [revold.no]
http://brontesaurus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/dilbert-meeting.gif [brontesaurus.com]
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/30000/1000/900/31967/31967.strip.gif [dilbert.com]
http://slcta.net/images/dilbert2007112223221.gif [slcta.net]
Or you could say... (Score:5, Insightful)
...these horrible technologies turn every hour of every day into an eternal meeting.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:3, Insightful)
It's almost funny (if it didn't demonstrate certain sad mindset...) that the columnist from TFA proposes ways to make this "meetingless" management effective.
While, in large part, this shift to a less bloated meetings is a measure of increased effectivness.
I got a better one (Score:0, Insightful)
How IM and SMS Are Killing the Languages All Over the World.
Help! We're wasting our time Doing Stuff! (Score:5, Insightful)
Justify their Existence (Score:5, Insightful)
Thirty hours of a forty-hour workweek devoted to meetings? I'm sure managers are getting nervous at the idea you can spend two hours a week on meetings and 38 hours a week getting stuff done.
Just like I have to show that I've gotten something done for the company in order to justify my paycheck, maybe it's time for the meeting-happy managers to show that their meetings have provided value to the company.
What is a meeting for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ostensibly you hold meetings to do three things
1) Share current status
2) Discuss ideas
3) Plan
A good manager has all these worked out beforehand, and uses this preparation to lead the meeting effectively and efficiently.
If you are spending hours and hours in meetings with your team, something is terribly wrong.
Re:Or you could say... (Score:1, Insightful)
Blah, tech un-savvy media pundit fawns over yet poorly understood 'youth' activity. Those who have used computers for 40 years roll eyes upwards. An industry has arisen around breathless reporting by the techno-retrograde over every new fad, all hoping to hit discoverer gold. How this beats a conference call remains unknown.
Good news & Bad news (Score:2, Insightful)
Good news: Fewer and shorter meetings.
Bad news: Now every time you're IM'd by your manager it is a meeting.
Good news: Everyone can be 'in the loop' all of the time
Bad news: It's even easier to keep people out of the loop
Good news: Everything is less formal -- no more meeting minutes or meeting rules
Bad news: Now every single scrap of paper and electronic barf that crosses your desk must be recorded and filed.
Good news: With laptops and smart phones you can have a 'meeting' at any time day or night ti fit your schedule
Bad news: Your manager does not know or care about your schedule -- just his own.
Good luck with that.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:5, Insightful)
30 hours per week of meetings is definitely excessive (and lots of people in my organization have that and even more scheduled every single week), but 2 hours is, in most cases (especially for management), too little. The key is balance and making sure the meetings you schedule are effective and serve a definite purpose. Further, invitee lists for individual meetings should only include essential personnel. I've seen plenty of times when someone isn't quite sure who to invite, so rather than taking the time to find out they'll just invite anyone they can think of who might possibly have some input, which makes meetings chaotic and overly long. Further, recurring meetings should be kept short and to the point. Scheduling an hour every week is usually not necessary for most things, and if you schedule it people tend to try to fill that time, even when they don't have anything of real substance to add.
Meetings are not the scourge of business, improperly managed meetings are.
Re:This is a *good thing* (Score:1, Insightful)
Long meetings have been the butt of jokes for as long as I can remember, and for good reason: they're a giant waste of time, especially for technical people.
This is usually true. But I have come around to the power of meetings 'once and awhile'. Sometimes it is better to cut off the stream of IM's and emails and just stick everyone in the same room and hash it out. This does have upsides. EVERYONE is focused on the task at hand and not the other 20 things they were doing. Everyone works towards a solution. Now do this too much though and you never get anything done. Dont do it enough and you start to see the other 'micro meetings' getting hijacked for other tasks with the wrong people in them.
Balance is key. Too much is bad too little is also bad.
Good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
Good grief, if they had 30 hours of meetings per week, and probably a few more hours walking to the next meeting and whatnot, when did they have time to do any actual work? I'm affraid that just hearing about spending 30 hours a week in meetings tops everything I've ever read in a Dilbert strip.
That gives me kind of a snarky idea, though. I've long been under the impression that most meetings (or a large part of the time allocated to them) falls basically into two categories:
- substitute for a social life (think: the boss just wants to talk to some people)
- responsibility avoidance (think: we all talked about it for hours, hence nobody is personally responsible for any given decision or lack thereof. Sorta like why they give firing squads blanks too.)
There are of course sub-categories and nuances (e.g., the crying on each other's shoulder instead of taking a decision kind of meeting, or the kind that's not just a substitute for social contact, but a one-sided occasion to brag too.) But I think that as top-leve categories, those two would account for more than half of the time wasting.
I wonder if the reduction in meeting hours just has to do with, well, if you give a lonely boss email and IRC and IM and all, he can get his socializing fix without preventing his subordinates from working in the process.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:3, Insightful)
I would KILL to have a 2 hour meeting per week!
We currently have about a 5 minute whiteboard session every other day from the Manager, and are left to Execute everything as we go. We used to have a 2 hour meeting last year, about every month. Those were good times.
Man, if 30 hours a week was ever a norm, that'd be awesome! Sitting and talking about how awesome it'd be to get stuff done. I mean, they do realize that there are only 40 hours in a work week, right? Thats like 2 hours a day of actual work!
Corporate Instant Message, Aging Management (Score:3, Insightful)
Bossman: Are you there?
Me: yes
*phone rings*
I usually answer their questions, which are always about *impossible to say verbally* statistics within the IM window, even while they are talking on the phone... Kind of as a way to Passive-Aggressively say "hey you know all that licensing money you pay to Microsoft for this nice IM solution? it would work better than the phone if you would just use it.
Re:Justify their Existence (Score:2, Insightful)
Thirty hours of a forty-hour workweek devoted to meetings? I'm sure managers are getting nervous at the idea you can spend two hours a week on meetings and 38 hours a week getting stuff done.
Sadly, the 40 hour work week is a failed assumption. Salaried people are expected to get their stuff done however long it takes. Which means that you're meeting 30 hours a week.............and working an additional 30.
Re:Corporate Instant Message, Aging Management (Score:3, Insightful)
phone has less of an audit trail
The real problem ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meetings are really dick-size wars. The manager that can call the most people to a meeting obviously has the biggest dick. And if you have to attend that meeting, your dick is smaller than his.
Once you get past the need for the ego boost, you notice that meetings drop off to almost nothing. No matter what the technology used, no matter what the industry.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us really LIKE the work we do. Its the people we do it with that we don't like. If I had to do less actual work, and spend more time with the people I do the work with, I would quit.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:4, Insightful)
From a productivity point of view a big potential benefit of IM/IRC meetings is that participants can be in more than one meeting at the same time (and maybe even do other stuff too).
Also it is less disruptive if people leave the meeting briefly (toilet etc) and come back - because they can scroll back to see what they missed. As for minutes, they can just do a summary at the end (e.g. who is going to do what and by when) and then submit the entire log to a designated place (so managers/others can have a record of what's happening).
By allocating certain days/periods for "formal" IM meetings to be held, and allowing them to overlap, you can free up more time for people to do stuff that requires full concentration.
These sort of meetings might not be so acceptable with external parties, but they should be fine for many internal meetings.
I've actually suggested this at my workplaces before, but so far most seem to prefer "traditional meetings".
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as we all despise meetings, they are often needed. I've seen email exchanges go on for days arguing about something that could have been resolved in about 15 minutes with a simple conference call.
Then again, communicating properly in text is a skill that can be learned and developed. Young people who spend their lives text messaging have a great deal more experience expressing themselves in text than the previous generation, which may lead to more productive digital conversations.
Also, IM is different from email in that it is much easier to have a back-and-forth like in a spoken conversation. It also discourages having a huge CC list like emails where 15 people have to wade through two people's misunderstanding, saving the company a lot of time.
Furthermore, in some topics text can have a higher effective bandwidth than the spoken word. For programmers, the ability to send properly formatted code snippets back and forth is a big advantage over sitting in a meeting room with a white board. Plus, for a lot of problems you just need sparse but frequent communication with someone while you are working, and IM is perfect for when you aren't in the same room.
Meetings are not the scourge of business, improperly managed meetings are.
Kudos to that!
Re:Actually misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that every single decision made in the meeting must have an associated "next action" assigned to somebody. Otherwise, there's no point in making that decision.
Re:Actually misguided (Score:3, Insightful)
So one of your solutions to effective meetings is to... have another meeting first? If you're making decisions prior then your main meeting sounds more like a "progress report".
Me, I turn it all off. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with replacing face-to-face with IMs and emails is that you turn what should be a few short meetings into long, drawn-out discussions that can continue pulling attention away for hours.
Re:Actually misguided (Score:5, Insightful)
* Make decisions beforehand with the key people. Most decisions don't really get made in the big meeting. Two or three key decision makers on the same page and the rest follow or simply refine the decision.
I can't stress this one enough. Meetings are not the place to hash out decisions - especially if they're cross-departmental meetings. I've had untold meetings wasted where we finally managed to get all the head honchos together in the same room, and we spend the hour trying to come to an agreement on point 1, sub-point a.
Instead, have an individual talk with the people who either sign the pay checks or who have some sort of authority to make things happen. Come to an agreement before the meeting, and then just present the conclusions. Yes, you should still listen to objections from others in the meeting - after all, everyone's there for a reason. But you should never, ever walk have a meeting without knowing exactly who is going to say what.
If you can make this happens, meetings are short, productive, and leave people happy. Everything else is icing on the cake.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:3, Insightful)
IM is appreciated when people have a set amount of work that isn't time-based.
Face time is preferred when no one gives a shit and you just want to not sit at your desk for an hour.
Re:Bravo, Bravissimo (Score:4, Insightful)
Good points all. The other function that meetings serve (that completely bypasses the mostly socially handicapped tech folks, myself included) is providing the inter-personal glue that holds groups and companies together, builds comradeship and makes individuals feel part of the team.
I can see some technical people go to a meeting and come away thinking `what a horrible waste of time'. And maybe it was a waste to them. But be assured, for every such discontented individual, there are two that are served.
Of course, I am referring to well-run meetings and not `dick-size' meetings as described by a subsequent poster.