Slashdot Mirror


How Chat and Youth Are Killing the Meeting

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."

43 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Bravo, Bravissimo by ls671 · · 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/

    http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2001-12-15/

    http://www.revold.no/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Dilbert_MeetingMadness.jpg

    http://brontesaurus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/dilbert-meeting.gif

    http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/30000/1000/900/31967/31967.strip.gif

    http://slcta.net/images/dilbert2007112223221.gif

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by sznupi · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by eln · · 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. There's also the issue that workers can tend to feel lost or abandoned if they don't have at least semi-regular communication with their bosses, even if it's just a weekly status meeting. For whatever reason, email communication just doesn't serve the same purpose as effectively.

      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.

    3. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, 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!

    4. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Funny

      While I laud the efforts in reducing meeting time, I am not yet convinced that the ends justify the means...

      Slashdot, I ask you this: can u tolr8 this blud on ur hands?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    5. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by Altus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the thing I like about Agile development (and its got some huge flaws no doubt) is the 15 minute daily meeting. It replaces status reports which take too long, are rarely accurate and are often not read by bosses or coworkers and replaces them with a fast, efficient meeting (if done correctly) where everyone gets a quick update on what other people are up too. It helps you to see your part in the overall project, helps to spot issue before they come up and give you some face time with the team and your boss.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    6. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean, they do realize that there are only 40 hours in a work week, right?

      Can I have your job?

    7. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In most real world meetings a participant's "CPU usage" is mostly idle during the entire meeting. This is very inefficient.

      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".

      --
    9. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by robot256 · · Score: 3, 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!

    10. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by billcopc · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    11. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 3, 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.

    12. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen meetings go on for a solid day because no manager in the place would man up and take charge ore responsibility. everything kept going around and around, it's what jaded me against MBA's and how worthless they are.

      I have wasted 8 hours in a meeting over a data protocol that I finally gave up and said," I'll write the damned spec, Hell I came up with a working prototype over the last 4 hours and it's already installed on the test server. Want to take a look?"

      I was afterward talked to about stepping out of my bounds and embarrassing a couple of managers. I shrugged, and said, "if they would do their jobs, I would not have to do it for them"

      I am so glad I don't work at a large corporation anymore...

      P.S.: they used my spec, After a manager tweaked it by flipping two data fields and claiming it as his own.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Bravo, Bravissimo by vertinox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Meetings are not the scourge of business, improperly managed meetings are.

      Excessive meetings tend to be the symptom of an improperly managed business.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  2. Or you could say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...these horrible technologies turn every hour of every day into an eternal meeting.

  3. I don't know by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been sitting in an IRC channel with all the devs all day every day. Sounds like an all-day meeting to me, it's just more efficient.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  4. Update your resumes guys. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Funny

    To succeed in the long term and at scale, stream-of-consciousness management must be supplemented in the following ways:

    All of you using IRC and email now have experience in "stream-of-consciousness management". Don't forget or otherwise the resume scanners will pass you over and when you're in the first interview, the HR drone will say you don't have up to date skills and chuck your resume away.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  5. Help! We're wasting our time Doing Stuff! by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need to get back to the Old Ways, where we invested all of time more wisely in Talking About Doing Stuff. We fear this new fangled "work".

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  6. Justify their Existence by Qzukk · · 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.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:Justify their Existence by kick6 · · 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.

  7. This is a *good thing* by Aurisor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work for a very successful, young company which is run by a very young CEO. On average, I have no meetings at all. We're currently in a huge crunch right now, which means I have 3-minute check-ins at the beginning and the end of the day.

    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 looks very much like one of those articles people will be mocking in 10 years. This really makes Forbes look like they're clinging to the 20th century...how embarrassing.

  8. What is a meeting for? by BadAnalogyGuy · · 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.

    1. Re:What is a meeting for? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are better tools than meetings to do 1, and maybe even 2.

  9. The meetings will continue... by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...until morale improves.

  10. Good news & Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Actually misguided by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Informative

    Technology, in and of itself, will not improve meetings. Effective management improves meetings.

    Give a group of inefficient people an IM client, and they will be inefficient people IMing all day and interrupting.

    I learned a lot about running meetings from effective managers and ineffective ones. My favorite example was a Senior VP for a regional bank. He held monthly meeting with all managers. Each manager was alloted time to speak. But you better damn well have something to say. Most managers passed time off to the next. Only the hihglights that really impacted the group as a whole got shared. Generally 15-20 people invited. Meetings 15-20 minutes. It was effective use of time, effective information. managers could seek each other out if they had other things to discuss.

    Want to have good meetings?
    * Invite only those that should be there. You don't need 3 marketing guys for your project kickoff meeting
    * Above 8 or 9 invitees is a big fat warning sign.
    * Have a written agenda. Circulate it beforehand.
    * Have a hard end time to meetings. Make it intentionally shorter than it usually would go.
    * 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.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Actually misguided by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2, 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.

    2. Re:Actually misguided by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, 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.

      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".

    3. Re:Actually misguided by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Actually misguided by wonkavader · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not misguided, but under-informed. Let me just expand on what you've implied.

      People think they can multitask. Young people who grow up with it especially are certain they can do it with little or no penalty. But they can't, as recent studies have shown.

      The studies Tom DeMarco talks about in his programming management books (/Peopleware/ jumps to mind) which show that programming speed (and especially style) goes down with interruption and noise.

      The assumption that the IM time is free and productive is a fallacy. Instead of paying for an annoying meeting for an hour a day, management is now paying for a low-level intrusion ALL DAY LONG. So while this may be an improvement, it needs to be quantified. (It may actually be a net loss of productivity.)

      It is probably (though not certainly -- we need numbers and studies) more profitable to make meetings short and effective.

  12. This'd be my boss's worst nightmare by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, two hours a week isn't nearly enough time for the micromanagement, pontification, self-promotion, idle chatter and general dumbfuckery that has become the mainstay of my job -- I can't see anyone in management in any serious-size company (where the most important job qualification for middle management is, of course, meetings) going for this.

    My God, can you just imagine having eight hours to sink into work, unbroken by pointless meetings? Being able to concentrate on a task rather than sit in some soul-crushing little room with fluorescent lighting just to realize that your boss brought you in just so he'd have people sitting there to look impressive to some other department? Getting things done rather than listen to your coworkers discuss the specifics of your job even though they're not vaguely qualified to do so?

    It'd be glorious.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  13. Good grief by Moraelin · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  14. Corporate Instant Message, Aging Management by netsavior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is hilarious/annoying as hell when you get an older "C" level executive who uses the corporate IM like this:
    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.

    1. Re:Corporate Instant Message, Aging Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      phone has less of an audit trail

    2. Re:Corporate Instant Message, Aging Management by netsavior · · Score: 2, Funny

      which is code for "calls me all the damn time to ask the same question over and over again"

  15. No kidding... by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When I was still working in IT, the last contract job I had, I had a micro-manager from hell. He'd never held any sort of management job before, but technically was brilliant.

    He needed to be in constant contact with me throughout the entire day.

    I had gone down to the server room for about 45 minutes, and came back to this IM:

    "ANSWER ME!!!! YOU MUST ANSWER ME! I AM YOUR MANAGER AND NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!" I'm not kidding. It was that obnoxious.

    Never mind the fact that we all carried around cellphones and he could have easily called me if he so desperately needed to talk to me.

    It turned out that, as usual, all he wanted was a "status update" on an install I was doing. Honestly, this was more of a quite common tech-to-management role switch problem, but the fact that he had IM at his disposal just made workdays damn near unbearable.

  16. The real problem ... by khasim · · 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.

    1. Re:The real problem ... by raddan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work at a place that is 90% female, and where meeting attendee counts routinely run into the 20-30 range. By contrast, my own meetings (with my staff) are in the 2-3 range.

      Is my dick really that small? Shoot. No wonder my wife lives on the other side of the country.

  17. New Title by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps a better article title would be "How Meetings and those Who Like them are Killing Productivity".

  18. no chairs at meetings by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Best idea from Extreme Programming

  19. IM kills meetings too by adenied · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By the headline I thought this might be about people using IM during meetings killing things. I tend to agree that having multi-hour meetings usually is pretty useless. If you really have that much information that needs to be shared chances are no one in your audience can absorb it all in a long tedious non-interactive meeting.

    OTOH, I hope people don't try to take this as "we can do everything without face to face interaction!" This is also problematic. I work with a number of people who live far away and only come into the office every few weeks. We work pretty well over the interwebs but the couple days we get for face to face interaction is invaluable.

    Back to my first thought, when you do have to be in a meeting and bring a laptop, just don't bury yourself in IMing with other people, checking e-mail, etc. It's distracting and I really hate it when someone has to repeat a question because someone was reading the latest Slashdot headlines. It's a level of inconsiderateness that shouldn't be found in a professional environment. That said, if I called a meeting and it seems useless to you, tell me!

  20. Me, I turn it all off. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful
    For at least three hours a day, I try to turn off my IM client and ignore my email. If I don't, I am not able to get enough focused effort on any one task in order to get things done.

    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.