Most meetings should just be a email.
Archive: https://archive.today/mpOjN
From the post:
>Poking fun at meetings is the stuff of Dilbert cartoons—we can all joke about how soul-sucking and painful they are. But that pain has real consequences for teams and organizations. In our interviews with hundreds of executives, in fields ranging from high tech and retail to pharmaceuticals and consulting, many said they felt overwhelmed by their meetings—whether formal or informal, traditional or agile, face-to-face or electronically mediated. One said, “I cannot get my head above water to breathe during the week.” Another described stabbing her leg with a pencil to stop from screaming during a particularly torturous staff meeting. Such complaints are supported by research showing that meetings have increased in length and frequency over the past 50 years, to the point where executives spend an average of nearly 23 hours a week in them, up from less than 10 hours in the 1960s. And that doesn’t even include all the impromptu gatherings that don’t make it onto the schedule.
It is a 100% true. I have meetings at least 3-6 hours a week where I could be actually doing work not just talking about it. I can't stand it.
Meetings can be a real waste, don't get me wrong. And certainly too many can be a problem.
I actually have the opposite problem though. Everyone is so averse to meetings that no necessary dialogue can take place.
I oversee a contrct providing some soecialized technicl support to a government customer. Somewhat regularly we have to update things as they wnt or budget allows or directives from way up tell etc. I always tell the gov lead, "I'd like to just hold a couple IPRs just with key stakeholders so everyone knows what's what, that what one side of (the customer) wants is't in conflict with another, etc and so forth."
"So we're good. Don't need meetings. Just send out the cardinal white and we'll be fine."
"Ok. But I'm not trying to down talk anyone or anything, but this isn't what your guys do so I'd be happy to have a quick once over where there are no dumb questions."
"No, we'll be fine."
Inevitably weeks later when changes are made multiple stake holders come and say, "Why didn't you tell us this is what was going to happen." And I have to politely figure out how to say, "Not only did I tell you in writing multiple, times that you either didn't read or didn't understand, it's literally exactly what you asked for against my advice."
Then my team has to redo everything after and the customer gets a second period of inefficiency while we turn stuff on and off to do what could have been done in the first place. And of course they're then all, "Hey I know it wasn't your fault but I relly need you guys to figure out how to fix this as fast as possible." And I have to be, "The fastest way would have been weeks ago before we started, but it's fine I'll just tell my team they'll have to be miserable for a few weeks AGAIN so we can do another round of fast patch." Assholes.
So meetings aren't inherently evil. It's people who don't know how to run meetings. Have a specific audience who is necessary as stakeholders, have a specific agenda with an endpoint defined by "this is what I need everyone to take away" (ad/or get back to me), and have someone at the meeting in a leadership position who manages to be compotent enough to keep everyone on that and that only and not deviate. But I guess that's asking too much in modern America.
I hate to say it but you are working with gov and that basically means that most of the people are functionally retarded. I worked in gov for far too long so I have experience with that as well....
Don't worry though, they will keep paying the checks and heads will never roll. Just CYA with reference emails and say "well, we did warn you and ask for a meeting, you refused".
At some point if you are not doing it already you need to put things into email/text "We offered to have a meeting over the upcoming changes but you have declined, we will provide the best support possible but you have accepted this risk". People start paying a LOT of attention when you start using language like that..... Don't ask me how I know. If you know, you know.
> I hate to say it but you are working with gov and that basically means that most of the people are functionally retarded Yep
> they will keep paying the checks and heads will never roll. Just CYA with reference emails and say "well, we did warn you and ask for a meeting, you refused". Yep
We try to do a good job and do... as idiots allow
