Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the what-do-you-think? dept.

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?

24 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. They're proof-of-work for useless managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    90% of the time, conference calls are simply a concrete way to show effort for project managers and other useless layers of middle management. These people have to make noise and occupy space on calendars, or else uncomfortable questions will start to arise about what exactly they're contributing to the company.

    1. Re: They're proof-of-work for useless managers by jonnyj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re: They're proof-of-work for useless managers by Pascoea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:They're proof-of-work for useless managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have countless coworkers that I have never met since they are on different continents, but I manage to accomplish quite a lot of work with them and recognize their voices. Face to face is usually not necessary. Even within the same site (a huge site), it is more efficient to use the phone than have half the participants make a 40 minute round trip walk to the other side of the plant.

      It is my experience that the person running the call will prioritize topics so that people can be released incrementally and as soon as possible from the calls.

      I'm sorry you work with a bunch of idiots.

    4. Re:They're proof-of-work for useless managers by jpschaaf · · Score: 2

      I have countless coworkers that I have never met since they are on different continents, but I manage to accomplish quite a lot of work with them and recognize their voices. Face to face is usually not necessary. Even within the same site (a huge site), it is more efficient to use the phone than have half the participants make a 40 minute round trip walk to the other side of the plant.

      Ditto on this opinion. Not every conference call is useful, but neither is every in-person interaction. I've had significant success in getting work done with people around the world via conference calls. I think the key is to keep the groups small (only have people on the call who have a vested interest in the topic under discussion), and to have some sort of tangible work product that comes out of the call -- whether that's code that was created via pair programming, a report, or even just an e-mail summarizing decisions that were made. Any conferencing software worth its salt will handle the issue of keeping voices straight. The real problems are traffic noise and the guy who doesn't know how to use the mute button.

    5. Re:They're proof-of-work for useless managers by jbengt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, I've been in a great number of meetings "wasting my time" listening to discussions on topics that do not need my participation, only to hear something that very definitely could affect my part of the project, but I was the only one who realized that.
      People should understand that sometimes "wasting time" is actually a necessary part of the process. (This does not include truly unnecessary or poorly run meetings, of which I've seen my fair share, also.)

    6. Re: They're proof-of-work for useless managers by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      My #1 gripe. Showing up on time and ready for the meeting.

      Nothing better than when the facilitator shows up 5 minutes late, and unprepared. And usually starts with a "Sorry I'm late, [chuckle] and sorry I didn't have time to put together an agenda. I invited all 50 of you here to talk about...". You can hear the eye-rolls through the phone.

  2. What do I think? by djbckr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Conference calls do tend to waste some time, but the person who wrote this article is just a whiner. You take the good with the bad.

    1. Re:What do I think? by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The full article is paywalled, but reading the summary is a complete waste of time. Of course there are difficulties with conference calls. I doubt anyone really enjoys the format. But you need to have other solutions before saying we should just do away with them.

      Conference calls serve a necessary purpose. I would certainly prefer to meet with all of my coworkers / partners / clients face to face for every meeting, but no one is going to spend $10k for a status meeting with a client across the country.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:What do I think? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      Conference calls do tend to waste some time, but the person who wrote this article is just a whiner. You take the good with the bad.

      I don't find conference calls a waste of time... I put my phone on speaker and mute- and ignore what's being said whilst I continue on working as normal.

      I only pay attention if I hear someone say my name... "I'm sorry, can you rephrase the question?"

      If I've ever missed anything important in a conference call from not paying attention- I'm not aware of it. But is it a waste of time? Not mine- because I continue on working as normal. It's only a waste of time if you pay attention to the conference call.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:What do I think? by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Having run a large number of successful conference calls, this is what I do, and what is required before I show up for one when I'm not running it:

      * Roles designated and communicated. Who is running the tech, who is running the meeting, who is taking notes.
      * Detailed agenda: Topics, desired outcomes, rough times, leads, etc.
      * The right people on the call to accomplish the agenda: Are the subject matter experts on the call? Are the project managers on the call? Are the deciders on the call?
      * And if all the above have happened: Obviously couldn't have been accomplished over email.

      90% of the conference calls I get invited to are disorganized and could have just been an email. So I don't go. If they don't take notes for me to read after, did it even really matter? It's a bunch of "I thought I heard..." at that point, and I can play that game with not even having been there.

      Sometimes you do need to talk it out with everyone at the table. For that to be productive, someone needs to own the meeting, put in the effort to organize it, and make sure that it's got goals and the right people and structure to meet those goals. Far too many people think sitting around yammering on the phone will accomplish something. It almost always does, but that something is counterproductive confusion, boredom, and loss of morale/will to live.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  3. I run one everyday by Archfeld · · Score: 3

    I run a daily turnover conference/teleconference call every day with about 40 lines, and maybe 100 people. When we get to the end, the part where I say anyone have anything else, I then say okay everyone have a good day and hang up the phone, and disconnect the video server window. Seems pretty straight forward. The worst part of running a large hybrid call is not saying good-bye but getting a decent roll call and herding the cats into discussing what's on the agenda while keeping the side talk to a minimum. I spend a moderate amount of effort corralling people by saying can't that be discussed offline or taken to email...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:I run one everyday by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:I run one everyday by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      It is the daily operations turnover call. It connects the large DC's and the remote operations centers. Tech support, operations support, batch operations and the remote support sites. We cover anything and everything that is part of the daily schedule, on-going outages, and scheduled tasks and repairs. I agree it is inefficient but better than email as there are often up to the minutes status given and questions that need to be asked by the oncoming shift about tasks in progress.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  4. Remote Employee Benefit by deKernel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the greatest advantages of working remotely is that you just put your phone on mute and continue to actually get work done.

  5. Heinlein had it right in TMIAHM by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. "Manuel, do you really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?"

    "You told them to. Urged them to."

    "My dear Manuel, I was simply putting all my nuts in one basket. I know those nuts; I've listened to them for years. I was very careful in selecting their committees; they all have built-in confusion, they will quarrel. The chairman I forced on them while letting them elect him is a ditherer who could not unravel a piece of string--thinks every subject needs 'more study.' I almost needn't have bothered; more than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better--and one is perfect for a job that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history, when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who dominated the rest..."

    I've had very useful conference calls, but hardly ever with more than three people on the line.

    1. Re:Heinlein had it right in TMIAHM by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      I've had useful calls with 40+ attendees.

      Admittedly, the purpose of the call was to have all involved parties on the line, at once, so each could refuse responsibility for the issue being (not) addressed, so that management, on the call, could then step out, decide among themselves which team would in fact take this on, and then return and deliver the verdict and sentence.

      It's been necessary, from time to time, to have these calls. Sometimes it even ends in the decision that the issue isn't worth fixing. And then we, right then and there, request that the teams offer us the messaging they want us to deliver to the affected population. I don't fix it, my role is to report it in an understandable manner, follo progress to fix it, engage as necessary to keep the process moving, and in these rare instances where the fix isn't going to happen, tell the reporters they are not going to get a solution. They ask why. That's the message I need the product owners to give me, since I have no reason to tell them there is no fix other than, simply, the product owners said no.

      And they, my customers, do often want to know why. The reasons vary from 0. Cannot be fixed before it is replaced/decommissioned, 1. Is not going to be a feature/etc we intend to provide going forward, 2. Is being abandoned, best not to say why, or 3. Internal considerations will prevent resolution.

      Yes, my customers have other channels to inquire through, and they come to me first... But not last.

      These are never pleasant calls. And the calls made before it gets to this point are unpleasant as well, but necessary. If it were simple it would never have gotten to this, and complex is just complex.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. Conference calls are a necessary tool by magzteel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Distributed teams can't just get together in a physical conference room We have to meet on conference calls.
    As for who is on the call, we use Skype for business. It shows you who is on the call and who is talking.

    If I don't have anything to contribute and am not interested in the discussion I decline the meeting.
    Of course, if one is rarely interested or contributing maybe it's time for a job change.

  7. nah by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary is so whiny I am not reading TFA, but ..

    1. I always know who invited me, because they sent the invitation. If they aren't leading the meeting, then they tell me so.

    2. Good meeting software is web based and it does indicate who is speaking. Granted, if some people are sharing a conference room, then we don't have a visual indication which one of their group is speaking, but if they aren't people we usually deal with then we wouldn't know them by sight anyway. In practice it's not a significant problem.

    1. Re:nah by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      2. Good meeting software is web based and it does indicate who is speaking.

      Shithouse software does this too. The article is a large list of whines that have been solved many times over by even dumb people which doesn't bode well for the author.

  8. Self inflicted? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    Look, if you actually call in to those kinds of conference calls, you deserve it, don't you?

    My inbox is full of what can only be called "optimistic" conference call organizers, but I'm wise to their game and simply don't bother with it. I'm the one doing the work, so they can blather on all they want, I decide what gets done and how. If they're curious, they can read the emails I send out about it. If they have some input, they can even respond to those emails and get a response.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  9. I hang up on them all the time. by stevegee58 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In all 40 of my previous jobs I routinely hung up on conference calls. :D

  10. /. seems to have really terrible meetings by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

    When the subject of meetings comes up here I am always baffled by the number of comments where people complain about meetings. Am I alone at working somewhere where meetings generally have point and result in important decisions being made? I can only think of one meeting I have attended in the past year I would call a waste of time (and that one was hosted by a client) The rest were by and large necessary in order to proceed on projects. Is this because I don't work in software development?

  11. And play mute roulette by swb · · Score: 3

    On larger calls with a lot of fairly anonymous people we will play mute roulette.

    You mash the mute button really fast a bunch of times without looking and then make some strange noise. The "loser" is the one who doesn't have the phone on mute.