Ask Slashdot: Should We Hang Up on Conference Calls? (ft.com)

Make everyone stand. Work to an agenda. Don't let people go on endlessly. There are plenty of suggestions on how to run meetings so they are not a waste of time. People pay less attention to a bigger waste of time: the multi-participant conference call, argues a story on Financial Times. The story -- shared by an anonymous reader and which may be paywalled -- makes a case against the need for conference calls: You know the drill. An invitation arrives in your inbox with a date and time, a list of participants, numbers for dialling in from different countries and a sign-in code (followed by the pound or hash sign). I have had dozens of these invitations to conference calls, particularly those to discuss forthcoming panels and events. None of the calls has contributed much to the eventual event. I know this because my role is often to chair the eventual event. This is the first difference between a conference call and a face-to-face meeting: it is clear who is chairing the meeting, whereas it is seldom clear who is chairing the call. On conference calls, there is usually someone listed as the organiser, with their own sign-in code (followed by the pound or hash sign), but they are often not the most senior person on the call. The organiser, I can say from experience, is seldom the person who is going to be chairing the planned event. Usually, they are the person who organised the call. That may be a senior person; it may be their personal assistant.

The call organiser may take the leading role in the call. It is hard to tell because -- unless you have met several times before -- it is difficult to know who is speaking at any time. Unlike in a face-to-face meeting, you cannot see people's faces. As participants "arrive" in the conference call, they usually say, "Hi, this is Diane", or are announced by a recorded voice like entrants to a 19th-century ball -- "Simon Oates has joined the call" -- but after that you have to listen keenly for any voice marker (an accent, a shouty tone) that will help you identify who is talking. That is if you can remember who is on the call in the first place. What do you think?

Comments

Re: They're proof-of-work for useless managers

[jonnyj]

Inatead of moanong, I'm not sure why you - or, for that matter, the author of the original article - don't just grab hold of any conference calls that waste your time and make them more efficient.

In my experience, it's almost always clear who is chairing a conference call; I always know which voice belongs to which attendee as I rarely have calls with complete strangers; an agenda is usually circulated in advance so that people are well prepared; and invitees who do not believe that they are required are free to not join.

Conference calls serve a critical purpose by facilitating communication and decision making on a projects or transactions with geographically dispersed teams. Perhaps I'm spoiled as most of my calls are with lawyers or city bankers. That wouldn't tolerate the poor behaviour that this whining article describes.

Re: They're proof-of-work for useless managers

[Pascoea]

I didn't read the article, but what I'm surmising is that they just pointed out that the bad qualities of a bad meeting are amplified by the barriers present in a conference call. Follow the basics of a meeting: Clearly define what the meeting is about, and what is the expected output. Every attendee should have a purpose for being there, and know what it is. Both of those should be included in the meeting invite. Doesn't matter if it's a conference call or not, a poorly defined meeting is going to be a bad meeting. It's just going to be worse on a conference call.

After you learn how to create a proper meeting definition you can pinpoint what's going to be a shit meeting before the first word is spoken. The only difference between a conference call and an in-person meeting? A good facilitator has a better chance of getting something productive out of an in-person dumpster fire. A poorly planned conference call is rarely going to produce anything meaningful.

I saw a really great me'me the other day, something along the lines of "People are really good at knowing when an hour-long meeting should have been an e-mail, but really bad at recognizing that a three day, six page, e-mail chain could have been solved with a 5 minute meeting.

Re:I run one everyday

[nitehawk214]

Seriously, 100 people on a daily call? I bet a lot of the participants avoid saying anything just for the sake of not delaying the end of it.

I guess even a WhatsApp group would be more productive/effective.

I had a boss with 25 direct reports, which is way too freaking many, enough that he never directly spoke to most people unless it was at the weekly meeting. The weekly meeting ended up being 2 hours of him individually asking each person for a status update. of course the other 23 people in the room generally did not care much about what they said.

It did not help that the "weekly" meting was more like once every 3 weeks, because the boss was too busy to take care of this own employees. Yeah, it was a shit company with shit management. Individually, lots of good people, useless as a group.