Run less or no meetings.

If you have to run meetings, consider the option to temporarily institute an approval process by senior management whereby the thesis for any meeting (proposed agenda, attendees, etc.) is first proposed in private. Then senior management has the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback. This alone will force those convening to think twice. If necessary, quantify the cost of the meeting as attendees × (time + loss of focus).

Scheduling-wise, optimize meetings for less productive periods (late afternoon, first thing in the morning pre-coffee, right after lunch, etc.).

Anonymous feedback. Let participants share feedback so they can explain what they liked/didn't like about the format, agenda, hosting and 'other' (always have an other option on surveys!) without appearing quarrelsome to others.

Use the Amazon approach: https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/jeff-bezos-knows-how-to-ru...

This is nuts. Having management approve meetings? How about "learn to communicate: decline unnecessary meetings and figure out how to reconcile disagreements".

This is how you end up with meetings to decide if a meeting is needed.

Isn't it the same thing? The approvals are to verify that the meeting is necessary.

I'd assume that other communication is done semi-formally, e.g. a slack group or call. Updates are asynchronous, someone does an update and the the whole group knows. Anything where you have to block out 2 hours of everyone's time should be approved.

They are not the same thing. I'm not disagreeing with the specific example you supplied, either.

As much as I dislike pointless meetings, this approach would not work in my workplace. Senior management would view this as a request to be babysat. Employees are all expected to host and attend meetings, and everyone is responsible for the value of this time|work.

Meetings come in all shapes and sizes.

That is true. I think many engineers would feel less empowered if approval for meetings was needed. I think that is not feasible.

I like the general idea of having less meetings. I try to cut time down for meetings I am responsible for. However, there are ~10 hours of meetings each week that I need to join either because: 1. There is an expectation by management that I should be there in case they have a question (often they do not). 2. I join to make sure I do not miss the critical pieces of information that I need. That is often five minutes out of sixty minutes. But it feels that often written content ahead of time (such as the amazon approach) would alleviate that need. Do you have any advise on how to deal with inefficient meeting culture by others?

How do you use anonymous feedback? We do not have any tools in place for this but I do like the idea.

> However, there are ~10 hours of meetings each week that I need to join either because: 1. There is an expectation by management that I should be there in case they have a question (often they do not).

We dealt with this in the zoom era by having some people present but not paying attention. They would join the meeting but then turn the sound off and do their own thing. If we needed their input on something, then we would ping them on slack and they would come in and provide their input. In GCal, marking people as "optionally" attending meant that they were free to not pay attention.

> 2. I join to make sure I do not miss the critical pieces of information that I need. That is often five minutes out of sixty minutes.

We made a rule that every meeting had to have an agenda list posted to slack before the meeting and a summary posted to slack after the meeting. The meeting convener was responsible for making sure this happened but could delegate this responsibility to someone else. Often, this was a good onboarding task for new members joining the team.

I quite like this and I feel like you could go one better and have optional people be "on call" during the meeting i.e. they should be available to ring in if needed.

We tried that initially and there was just a bit too much friction involved in them finding the zoom link and then joining and then getting their mic connected and everything. It was easier to just have them join the meeting in the beginning and be muted so it was ~5s for them to hop into a convo.

One thing businesses should be aware of here, if they go for this, is the legal risk that such transcripts end up being disclosed in a legal discovery process. Most businesses wouldn't want every word that's said in a meeting to be recorded and stored "forever" (which it likely is, if you use a third party cloud based tool).

Also, if you do go for an external tool, there's now someone outside your organisation with a recording and transcript of every meeting you've used this for... That's a potential goldmine - not the kind of company you want you see acquired or merging in the future.

Maybe people's expectations will change due to so many online meetings, but under normal circumstances, I can't imagine many legal teams would want the risk of a third party transcription tool listening in.

can you provide some specific recommendations here?

> Scheduling-wise, optimize meetings for less productive periods (late afternoon, first thing in the morning pre-coffee, right after lunch, etc.).

Wait, you just mentioned all times. I'm most productive late in the afternoon. Not everyone is the same.

I agree on the premise to minimize meetings.

On the specifics of the meetings I've implemented 2 things:

1) Offer no-video meetings, maybe for 1:1 if you don't need to screen share. Be the first to go on a walk or be away from keyboard, to encourage others (especially new team members) to do it as well. Clearly I'm not sayin ALL 1:1, face time also has value, use your judgement.

2) Include a bit of non-working life. The way we were running our weekly sync was talk quickly about what you did/didn't last week (especially to catch blockers), share what's your plan for this coming week, share something you did during the weekend. 8-10 people, 30min.

With 400 emails per day the last thing I'd want to do is add another time-waster on approving a meeting and collecting feedback on it, meeting minutes are sufficient.

I far prefer to let people self-organise and foster that culture plus weekly or bi-weekly 1-1s. Nothing is anonymous in an organisation.. you can recognise people by terms, grammar. Then.. having people do a survey on a meeting, every meeting?, is squaring the problem so.. a 1 hour meeting of 10 people, 10 hours, results in 2 minutes feedback time per person, 20 additional minutes, plus associated time to rant about someone else i.e. one's self, and then to deal with that passive-aggressive rant rather than sticking this emotional response into the 1-1 when someone's had time to reflect.

Madness.

"late afternoon, first thing in the morning pre-coffee, right after lunch"

The problem is that unless everyone works exactly the same hours, that's almost all the times - you basically have to have all your meetings at 10 or 2.

What worked the best in my experience is to have an agenda. Having an agenda with time-slots for each bullet point makes it easier for everyone to get their voices heard instead of having a lone ranger talking nonstop about their favorite subject for 1h non-stop.

In short: - Have an agenda with time-slots - The meeting organizer is the one in charge of sticking the meeting to the agenda. When someone goes off-topic steer the conversation back to the topic. Be strict and ruthless about this (In a nice way ofc :) ) - Avoid the small-talk that can be done before or after the meeting, not everyone in a meeting wants to know about how many goals you're kid score this last Saturday. - Take notes for each bullet-point in the agenda, actions points could be make a jira-task for this, contact John Doe about budget changes etc. - After the meeting share the meeting notes with everyone, tag people in the notes so they get re-informed of their tasks after the meeting.

That usually does the trick for me, this template can ofc not be applied to all kinds of meetings, read-the-room.

> Avoid the small-talk that can be done before or after the meeting, not everyone in a meeting wants to know about how many goals you're kid score this last Saturday.

With all the pandemic-induced social isolation, we saw the small-talk creep into meetings more and more in our team. What works well for us is to have a dedicated recurring meeting just for small-talk. We have it twice a week in the morning, when everyone is just drinking their first coffee of the day and not up to much yet anyway, so it doesn't seem to be taking too much productive time away.

I spend about 5-10 minutes putting together an agenda that includes references to background context, purpose, and expected outcome.

If the background material is essential I include a prep time estimate.

I decline meetings that are unclear what they are and say why. If the agenda is sparse or I don’t understand why it’s taking an hour, I suggest 30 or 15 minutes, etc

I connect in 2-3 minutes early for some zoom chitchat before the meeting starts.

When I see good agendas, prep, organization in a meeting, I verbally tell people how their meeting prep materials helped me.

I always leave my camera on as it helps me when I can see others to tell when they are about to talk, when they are multitasking or when they look bored or even step away.

I’m not sure how to set up org culture, but I figure by modeling and testing out different approaches it helps.

Mind sharing an example of what your meeting agenda looks like?

I don’t really use a template and I tend to send this out with the initial invite to give as much lead time as possible and then a link to a cloud doc that might change.

Here’s a recent one I sent with something like: “I’d like to meet to discuss what you need as a data steward from a metadata catalog. At the end of our time we should have a list of functions you think are important in our architecture guard rail.

To prepare for our time, please spend five minutes reading the linked docs in the agenda

Topics to cover, please free to add anything you think is relevant: - Different Personas, including stewards [link to an intranet page] - prepend - How users use your data today, desired new uses -invited person1 - Any systems or APIs you currently have we could use to find metadata - invited person2 “

I cant format here but I’ll put people’s names in bold to help them understand the expectation.

If somebody emails me back an agenda item, I’ll add it to the agenda and update the calendar invite.

I like how simple your agenda items look. It kind of reads like an email that needs to be discussed.

I’m not a professional meetinger, so I assume that people want to read as little as possible. And my goal is something specific and would rather never meet.

I think it is just an email tied to a calendar item that floats around in calendars, teams, whatever.

Some tips I've been learning:

- Be ruthless about when you need to have a meeting. Its generally only if you need three or more decision-makers to come to a consensus on a strategy to solve some problem.

- Be ruthless about who you invite; it's usually only people who have something explicitly to contribute or who you know wish to be included.

- One person leading/driving the discussion, making sure to keep things on topic and within timeframes.

- A clearly defined agenda and goal, ideally written up in the invite message.

- Take very brief notes of decisions made and immediate actions, conclude with a rundown of these and follow up with them by email.

This basically touches all the points that I came here to write, except I want to add:

- Check-in: Give each attendee 10-30s to just say how they're feeling, either in general or about the topic. This can do a lot to make individuals more likely to engage in the meeting, but also to help you assess the mindset of those attending and anticipate issues.

- Framing: Beyond having a defined agenda and goal, it is also important to establish some 'rules' early on. For example "If I feel we are off agenda, I will interrupt and ask that we freeze the discussion until the end of the meeting, if we have time left".

- Check-out: It is important that you don't equate silence to mean acceptance. Sometimes people will disagree with the results but refrain from raising the point as they feel alienated in the meeting or don't want to 'open it back up'. By asking people to each explicitly state if they're happy with the meeting results or if they feel some tension, you can get hints at where these issues may be.

These points may seem soft, but they are honestly incredibly valuable I find. They've saved me a lot of time with a few people who would otherwise stay silent then send me a 'derailing' email a week or two later.

The idea about check-in is awesome! Someone mentioned it further down but "dead audience" is a problem, people often start to code or do other things during meetings. This is only gotten worse during the pandemic. So this feels like a great way to start a meeting without taking too much time! Thank you for the idea. Do you do this in every meeting you run? Do people in your meetings get tired of it after reoccurring meetings (for example doing this every meeting seems less exciting)?

This comment has it all. A lot of other folks are missing the importance of a follow-up email. I always send a follow-up with notes/conclusions and action items assigned to people.

Too often I’ve attended meetings that might have well never happened because whatever got discussed was forgotten a month later and another meeting was held to discuss the same thing.

The point about meetings just being forgotten is a good point! I think that happens too often to me as well. I will try to do this in the future! It seems like that would be a good standard to follow for everyone.

These are are all essential but I think the only thing missing is that the person leading the meeting has to be controlling, their only job is to make the meeting productive through any means necessary. It is okay to cut people off and have that kick to offline or a separate meeting. The leader must control the meeting.

I think one thing that is missing in the Slack/no meeting discussions is that you can resolve things just as poorly (or worse!) via email/Slack/Teams. Effective communication is really really hard and requires significant effort.

There are many different types of meetings, so you will need to give some additional color on yours (number of people, frequency, is it within a team, cross team etc).

Effective meetings are hard. I struggle moderating them constantly. Here’s what I learnt:

- Be clear about the purpose of the meeting - is it knowledge sharing, is it to kick people’s butts to progress towards a goal, is it to build camaraderie, etc. Information sharing can be much looser in structure, a project meeting needs to be run with a more tight agenda. A social meeting should be relaxed and have avenues to break the ice

- Always keep meeting minutes (unless it’s a social focused meeting) and write down who will do what afterwards (and follow up on those points). Even if the first few times it’s unsuccessful, eventually it will improve overall discipline. However sometimes it’s an uphill battle that can’t be won - imperfection is okay, people are lazy and won’t do everything they agreed to do in a time manner. Just push them in the right direction

- Focus on the important things, make sure they are covered off in the meeting. Thus, meeting prep is vital - plan the interactions as much as possible in your head and write the goal you want to achieve from the meeting

- Don’t hold unnecessary meetings. Respect people’s time as much as possible

- Practice makes perfect. There are so many combinations of types of meetings that you just need to develop a feel for them

- Try and understand the personalities of who is attending. This will give you strategies to make the meeting more effective. For example a decision maker who never replies to emails and takes too long to make a decision - you want to pin them down in the meeting and gently pressure them to come to a conclusion, because once the meeting is over, they will spend another week procrastinating! Others like to work together and chat more, for them, meetings help give energy to move towards common goals. Others are less social and want to focus on doing work, those meetings should be much more concise and direct

Hope that helps

Product Manager here, I set a lot of meetings.

Basically make sure there’s a very clear goal for the meeting and very clear bounds on what is being discussed.

For me, I put an agenda in every meeting invite I send out with:

1. The purpose of the meeting

2. Bullet points on the things to consider

3. The end goal. What is the point we stop discussing

Part of it is also keeping people talking about relevant things.

It’s tough being the person who says “this is a great line of thinking but it’s not relevant to X” but in the end it helps make timeboxed meetings actually stay timeboxed.

Also, depending on the context, often it’s helpful to pre-align with a few key people who might cause potential struggle. Don’t pre-align with another meeting though. That’s just redundant.

Your third point, setting an "end goal" is a great point! I have not thought about that often enough. I usually set agendas for my meetings but too often I do not define the ideal "final state" I would like to see from a meeting. Do you expect this also from others when they send you meetings? How do you handle regular meetings as a product manager, e.g. Sprint plannings in a Scrum context, do you then say: "My end goal for our planning is that everybody knows what to do in the next sprint"? Also, I tried to also ask this to others, but how is meeting feedback in your organization? My own meetings I have control over, but those are less than the ones other schedule where I am a participant, not an organizer.

Same same. I feel your points really communicate to the attendees that you value their time and input.

I can't stand meetings with no purpose/agenda/end goals. In my experience they grind decision making to a halt, increase interoffice politics/shenanigangs, and we end up building worse things because we have spent so much time in worthless meetings/debating about worthless meetings that we don't have time to actually build a good solution.

It really starts at the top. If stakeholders are pushing points 1, 2, 3, then the incentives organizationally are going to change and you'll end up with productive meetings as an outcome. If they're the type that are, "The agenda is in the meeting title! (Q2 sales checkin)" Then you'll always get unsatisfactory results.

Here are some rules I have been pretty successful with (opinionated):

0.) Prevent meetings whenever possible

0.) Don't do meetings longer than 2 hours, better 1 hour

0.) Invite only people, that have to be there

1.) Set a topic and max. 3 goals per hour BEFORE inviting

2.) Prepare yourself BEFORE the meeting

3.) Repeat the goals visually at the beginning (on a board)

4.) Focus on the goals

5.) At halftime, revalidate the achieved goals

6.) Take the last 5-10 minutes to verify, the goals have been achieved

7.) Don't exceed the time limit (not even 5 minutes)

8.) If you finish earlier, leave the room earlier! (Don't talk about something else, because you are all there)

9.) Write an email with a SHORT summary to everyone, who may care

I definitely feel the growth of meetings has been a bit insane since WFH started.

Here's what I do:

1) separate technical meetings from process/operations meetings and clearly spell out the difference

2) Write in a narrative format what it is you're trying to accomplish and distribute this ahead of time. Doesn't have to be the often lauded "Amazon 6-pager", but if you can't explain what it is you're trying to accomplish in words you need to think about it a little more.

3) do not be afraid to throw someone else's name down as the owner for a specific action (but make sure to follow up if they aren't/can't be present)

4) Designate primary and alternate owners for actions, and make it clear when you need the primary and when the alternate will suffice. This helps with a) meeting fatigue and b) the increase in volume of meetings caused by no more water cooler talk.

5) do not take critical feedback about meeting structure personally. This one was hard for me at first, since I'm used to more formal structures, but there is no "pure best practice" for meetings - especially in a WFH environment. It's an iterative process.

1) is a great advise that I think I can make use of, same for 2).

For 5) I feel it is hard. Often there are expectations that you join meetings just in case a higher-up manager needs a piece of information or I am afraid to loose out on critical information. Do you, in your organization, have an active meeting culture with feedback for meetings? It feels to me that in my organization too often when a conflict, next steps or any other decision is needed, instead of writing about it people just schedule meetings to discuss things. And then there are meetings where people just share information ("team meetings") that could be shared in writing much more efficiently (people read faster than others talk, so reading information is often more efficient from my point of view).

The general theme of my advice is that communicating in a clear, precise, and reproducible manner (reproducible meaning where someone can back-brief what you just said and get it right) is one of the most important things to learn/know how to do if you work in tech - or any industry, really, but Tech in particular. I didn't come from a technical background, unless you count math, and that has been the go-to advice I give people because it does two things: 1) it builds up your own confidence in what you're saying as well as others' confidence in you, and 2) you will actually end up learning more about the subject as you strive to be evermore accurate in what you're saying.

If English is not your first language, then this advice is doubly important because it will help you improve.

Edit: sorry, I didn't actually answer your question.

>Do you, in your organization, have an active meeting culture with feedback for meetings?

Yes, but I'm a little more senior now and I think focusing on the feedback mechanism itself is missing the forest for the trees. Communication is always King, wherever you go. It seems like, from your description of the situation, you have a great opportunity to improve the communication within your organization overall, if people are still reverting to "just schedule a meeting".

1. Set an agenda and share that agenda with participants in advance,

2. Make sure the agenda includes specific desired outcomes (e.g. We will decide on the scope for release x and choose what gets dropped,)

3. Keep meetings short. Likely, you’ll only need more than 30 minutes to discuss and make a decision. If you regularly need longer than that, you probably have too many invitees.

For some, the meetings are a way to avoid loneliness. I have sympathy for that, but no tolerance. Every wasted minute is one I have to make up at the end of the day.

My tip: Don't even start the meeting unless you know the criteria for ending it. Most people just run out the clock or try and use the time for something else -- deny them this.

Actually it's totally fine (and important) agenda to just socialize, maybe you shouldn't be on those meetings if you don't like them (I don't like them either if there are too many people).

Hi there, product person here. Due to the nature of the role I have to create meetings to agree on approaches, align on directions and communicate often. Very very, keen not to waste anyones time, so I try my best to email first and be present when facilitating meetings.

Two quick frameworks that you might find helpful:

1) The POST method, to give clarity at the beginning of a meeting: Purpose: What is the purpose of the meeting? Objective: What are you trying to achieve in the meeting, and what does success look like? Structure: What is the structure of the meeting we are having? Timing: How much time is allocated to the meeting?

https://gist.github.com/aaronbuchanan/2dcf936daceab925da61

I like this because it helps give quick context, also the mnemonic is quite handy.

2) Try to structure your meeting around other people's questions: - Going from basic what questions working up to why we need to make a decision, how they might be impacted etc. - I wrote a short post about it here: https://www.logikblok.com/supporting-asking-questions

I like this because it focuses your communication around your audience/user needs.

Aside from that and keeping everyone on the same track of discussion / time / documenting agreements all help out. Hope that helps.

These are probably the two best interesting aka "seemingly not in wide use" ideas we've tried, with great results:

- create a culture of actually RSVP'ing for meetings (yes or no!) so that people know who will be in a call and you don't waste 5 minutes wondering if X will be joining or if anyone will be joining at all. Pairs best with a culture of actually being on time for meetings and ending on time (so you can all be on time for the next one).

- to facilitate this, if you have a good agenda, people can opt out of coming if there are no relevant topics, or in some cases they can share their feedback on to a colleague or the organizer who will pass it on to the group on their behalf. As a result of this process, some of our "best" (from today's point of view; they used to be the worst in terms of getting through the agenda or understanding if this instance will be relevant to you) meetings have morphed into an actual commitment to have every participant spending 5-10 min to write down status updates in advance, with 2 minute actual "live meeting" check-ins: "anything besides the notes we all left for eachother, to discuss?"

This second one has been especially effective for our distributed management team in very different timezones where "overlap" meeting times (usually beginning-of-day-US/end-of-day-EU) are at a premium. You can do a few of those ("whole product team + stakeholders" "whole back-end dev team" "all engineering managers") meetings in one traditional-meeting time slot if you keep the agenda razor focused.

I really appreciate the second point and the mentioned ideas! That is great advise. I think having everybody write status updates in advance can be a great idea but how do you make sure that does not turn out to be more work than just sharing those updates verbally in the meeting?

It's not that it's less work!

By one measure it's "more work" - if you think about the time that each person spends creating their content in advance, vs what they could spend wall clock time talking in the meeting - 30 min meeting can only have thirty minutes of talking - vs N x 10min pre-writing. It's just parallelizable outside of the tiny synchronous need as the mutex is passed, and a better use of everyone's time - you can write the status update any time before the meeting, whenever you have downtime.

Don't use the meeting as a forum to emote. We all make mistakes, we don't need a 5 minute monologue to explain it. We all hate meetings, we don't need to spend time on the actual meeting complaining about it. Have your information ready to go. Know how to use the mute button and be ready to respond right away. So much time is wasted by "I couldn't find the mute button" or whatever. Don't be passive aggressive. Just answer the question. If you don't know, say you will get back right after the meeting. If you aren't proficient at JIRA, make the ticket AFTER the meeting. This applies to all technology. If you can't do it in under 15 seconds, write it down and do it right later. Stop holding the meeting hostage cause you have to do your process, your way, in your time. "Hold on let me add it to my calender". No, write it down and do it after the meeting. Unless this is an actual deployment or something, don't waste time going through all the technical details; unless everyone on the call is very technical. Make the conversation accessible to all members of the call; or else they shouldn't be on the call. I can go on...

Keep meetings small and quick. Only include the leads if possible. Send an agenda a few hours before a meeting helps too. If something important blocks a meeting, cancel and schedule a new one instead of dragging it into a multi hour nightmare. Try to reach actionable points that can be directly copied as a JIRA ticlet. Send a post meeting summary as soon as possible with these actionable points. And don't forget to cc relevant people.

I think meetings between management and meetings between the development teams should be strictly separated. The worst meetings are when both types of people are in the same meeting.

For development teams, I run the meetings for the benefit of the team.

Here are the meetings I usually run with a team - Daily Standup, try to keep it below 15 minutes and on track, what are you doing, anything keeping you from doing your job? need any help? - Weekly Knowledge exchange: Let the team share what they did this week and what they learned? Can be offtopic, but not untechnical. E.g. I learned about this algorithm unrelated to work. This is for the team to grow their skills and share some tidbits the others may benefit from. - Bi-weekly Bug review: We look through the list of bugs and see what the underlying cause was for each bug. Ways to fix it are discussed

That's all I run. I hate other meetings with a passion. I've sat in meetings with 30 people that were in a foreign language, what a waste of time.

The simplest solution is to make all meetings optional. Then people will stop going to meetings that are not useful to them. You will be forced to find better solutions to the problems your meetings were solving sub-optimally.

Many meetings are used to simply coordinate activity. This can easily be done through asynchronous communication using email or instant messaging.

If I'm called into a meeting and I don't see a clear need for me there, I'll ask why I was invited.

Usually there's a reason, but often it's just cause a question might come up that I can answer or similar. In those cases I'll let them know they can poke me if they really need me and then I'll join for whatever they need.

Thankfully my boss has understood that the less he's in our way the more we get done, so this works well.

One of the best things a manager can do for their engineering team is insulate them away from all the pointless bureacracy in the org - including most meetings.

My boss is fantastic at this. I feel sorry for him, but also highly respect him. He goes into a stupid, pointless, hour-long meeting where only 3 minutes of content is relevant to us. Of course our entire team was invited and nominally expected to attend. He pushes back saying we're busy. He comes back and relays those 3 minutes of important content while suffering through 57 minutes of droll.

If you have people in your meeting who do not meaningfully contribute or learn something valuable that could not have been learned from a shared document, you have wasted their time.

So, ask:

Did everyone in the meeting contribute or learn something they couldn't learn by reading?

If the answer is 'no', there were too many people in the meeting or it should not have happened at all.

I've been in so many hour long meetings with 6-8 developers plus project manager, supervisor, and maybe one related person and at least 6 of the devs say nothing. That's 6 hours of dev time lit on fire each time.

The best meetings tend to be ones where stakeholders can share information and come to a decision that pushes a project forward or where there is valuable training or a useful presentation.

Also, if your meeting ever includes the phrase "well, we've got 20 minutes left so let's take some time to discuss <this thing unrelated to the meeting>", it was a terrible horrible no good bad meeting.

This rings so true for me.

Depends on your org, but I bet some of those developers wish they were back at their desks working, because it's a waste of time for them. The reason they're probably there is because they feel it would look bad for them if they were absent.

>How do you handle meeting feedback for meetings by others to make sure it is not just a random meeting with talking, no agenda, no clear outcomes and mainly information sharing?

Easy. (Or at least easier said than done.) Only initiate/attend a meeting if one or more of these things are clearly defined before the meeting even takes place. It can be helpful to approach it like you would a ticket or a to-do at work: identify what the completion criteria is and timebox it, then assign it out or invite people to it who are needed for its success.

Another thing to keep in mind is the hierarchy of your organization. This can reduce the chances of inviting too many or the wrong people. For instance, if a product manager wants to meet about a small upcoming project, they probably don't have to invite the entire development team. Rather, they should invite the lead and have the lead forward the invitation to whoever might be working on it within the dev team.

All these points are very true. But let's say you are in a large international organization, competing audiences etc. How you handle political concerns when someone schedule an unnecessary meeting? Can you just tell them straight-ahead? I often find that for many people it is easier to initiate a meeting than rather to share information in written form (that would their work to prepare, while for a meeting everybody else has to spend time).

Sorry for the delay in response. What do you mean in particual by political concerns?

If I'm understanding the situation correctly, if the company is large and spread far apart, an employee should be able to reach out to the leads of other teams, explain what it is that they hope to accomplish with the meeting, and ask the leads to invite anyone else who may either contribute to it or get something out of it. That said, even just pinging those people ahead of time with the question of "do we need to have a meeting about this? / Would this meeting be useful?" can go a long way in either refining the agenda or cancelling the meeting altogether. Depending on the organization, of course.

These are my guidelines. As they are mere guidelines mileage may vary depending on the participants and the context of the meeting.

If you call in a meeting:

- Have a clear picture of what you try to achieve with it.

- Communicate the purpose of the meeting in advance.

- Moderate the meeting to make sure that its participants actively contribute towards its goal. That is, if the meeting digresses, politely address it and make a constructive proposal on when and how to address the topic that caused the digression.

If you are being called into a meeting:

- Ask for what you can contribute to the goal of the meeting if it is not clear.

- Take responsibility in working towards the goal of the meeting.

This is hard work and I'm having enough Zoom fatigue so that I do not follow these guidelines myself at times but I try. I'm curious what others bring up.

* Prepare a thorough agenda in a shared/cloud editor before scheduling the meeting

* Send out the meeting invite 3-7 days ahead of time, including full reasoning for the meeting, and a link to the agenda in a shared editor

* Only hold the meeting if you weren't able to work it out async in the time leading up to the scheduled meeting

Sometimes avoiding a meeting is incentive enough to coordinate the work async ahead of time. But if the meeting still happens, you’ll have a well prepared thought out agenda, and all participants will have had time to prepare as well. So your meeting becomes a matter of working through any remaining unresolved topics/details from the shared agenda.

1. Prepare agenda - write in points what topics are going to be at the meeting.

2. Set time frame - meeting longer than hour is counterproductive.

3. Invite proper people - include those who are actually needed (don't invite anyone "just in case").

4. Moderate!!! - have someone who will moderate meeting, will be in charge of presenting queued topics (asking questions and asking for answers) and will cut extending off-topics.

5. Write summary - sum up everything was said during meeting and send to everyone who was participating.

Why are meetings better than records based (written, podcast, videos, whatever) asynchronous (remote friendly) discourse processes?

I've never been in a meeting that I consider productive. I've never been in a meeting that, in my opinion, couldn't have been done better with at least 90% of the time spent in the meeting completed by reviewing materials before the meeting and then signing off on them. Even that 10% could have been done with even an email / forum thread.

That is exactly my feeling! Yet I find most organizations do not implement async cultures and/or tools to run those processes. I feel that too often people do not want to do any upfront work to prepare an async discussion and rather expect everyone to do work by joining a meeting that could have been avoided. And then there is the social aspect that people rather want to talk via Zoom/Skype/Teams... than to write.

> no agenda

Have a agenda. Contribute to steering conversations into completing the agenda, once done, finish the meeting. Write down notes of everything, publish to team members / everyone in the company. Try to have less meetings and more focused ones to complete specific goals. Everyone who is in the meeting should have a purpose for being there, otherwise they shouldn't be there but still can see meeting notes if they want to.

I’d be equally interested in the discussion of how to efficiently come to agreements over text based back-and-forths. What I find more taxing are these drawn out back-and-forths in which keeping the attention of all stakeholders can be difficult.

Conversely, being “meeting first” demands everyone’s attention. Even for small scale projects I’d rather hop on a 5 minute call then get into it over slack.

Make an Agenda.

Send said agenda to everyone preferably the day before the meeting.

Also make the meeting small enough that everyone can be asked to engage with said agenda.

,, people just join because they are afraid that they miss information if they don't''

Meetings shouldn't be the way to communicate information, it should be done to make decision or to socialize. Emails are the way to communicate information much more effectively. Have people take meeting notes and email it at least.

We wrote about this here https://staysaasy.com/management/2020/05/05/Running-Meetings...

Short version: have an agenda, manage the clock, don't fuck around, have well defined and understood interaction models

We coincidentally wrote a post on this at the start of the pandemic: https://staysaasy.com/management/2020/05/05/Running-Meetings...

TLDR

* Have an agenda * Aggressively manage time * Make sure that people engage in the way that you need them to * Stop telling jokes

Recycling some replies. More context on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26182988:

Pick and choose (especially meeting notes, alignment, and the links on the bottom about video calls):

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19924100 (understanding codebases, etc.)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26591067 (testing pipelines, scaffolding, issue templates)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22873103 (making the most out of meetings, leveraging your presence)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22827841 (product development)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20356222 (giving a damn)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25008223 (If I disappear, what will happen)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24972611 (about consulting and clients, but you can abstract that as "stakeholders", and understanding the problem your "client", who can be your manager, has.)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24209518 (on taking notes. When you're told something, or receive a remark, make sure to make a note and learn from it whether it's a mistake, or a colleague showing you something useful, or a task you must accomplish.. don't be told things twice or worse. Be on the ball and reliable).

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503365 (product, architecture, and impact on the team)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22860716 (onboarding new hires to a codebase, what if it were you, improve code)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22710623 (being efficient learning from video, hacks. Subsequent reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22723586)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21598632 (communication with the team, and subsequent reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21614372)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21427886 (template for taking minutes of meetings to dispatch to the team. Notes are in GitHub/GitLab so the team can access them, especially if they haven't attended).

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24177646 (communication, alignment)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21808439 (useful things for the team and product that add leverage)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20323660 (more meeting notes. Reply to a person who had trouble talking in corporate meetings)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22715971 (management involvement as a spectrum)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922120 (researching topics)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26147502 (keeping up with a firehose of information)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26123017 (fractal communication: communication that can penetrate several layers of management and be relevant to people with different profiles and skillsets)

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26179539 (remote work, use existing tooling and build our own. Jitsi videos, record everything, give access to everyone so they can reference them and go back to them, meetings once a week or two weeks to align)

Correction: the pandemic exposed communication and workflow issues that you are trying to solve by scheduling tribal knowledge.

1. Are you having a meeting because somebody is looking for information?

Do not have a meeting. Write shit down. There is e-mail and Slack and MS Teams and Google Docs and Sharepoint and Confluence and a billion ways to write shit down that does not require a meeting. Always make an attempt to gather information before you have a meeting, because you might get to the meeting and find out you have go to find out information somewhere else anyway.

Document where people should write shit down and where to go find information. Force people to write shit down by making it a requirement to do something. Make the process of finding or writing shit painless, easy, useful, and transparent (no hidden folders, secret channels, locked down access, obscure systems, etc). This is more difficult than it sounds, but the benefits are huge.

2. Are you having a meeting to decide something?

Before the meeting, if you think you're going to run over the meeting time, make the meeting longer, or realize that your meeting's scope is too big, or that you haven't gathered the information needed to make the decision. Also write down what you're going to talk about / decide, who is required to attend (& why), what/where the supporting information is, what the potential decision choices are. During the meeting, write down feedback. At the end of the meeting, write up what was decided. End the meeting as soon as you achieve the meeting's objective. Reply to all the attendees with the meeting notes (or a link to the meeting notes). Write all this down on a page titled "Meeting Checklist".

Tell your coworkers to include the Meeting Checklist in the meeting request. Make an e-mail filter to send all meeting requests without the checklist to the trash. Ask your boss to back you up on this.

People will bitch and complain about this because they'd rather interrupt 20 people for an hour than do a bunch of annoying preparation. Tell them that they have 2 alternatives: 1) don't have a meeting and figure it out offline, or 2) if it's an emergency, they can schedule a meeting without the checklist, if they include "EMERGENCY" in the subject of the meeting.

3. Do people just need an outlet for social interaction?

"social hours" / "office hours" can be a good way for people to talk without a meeting. Schedule these at either the beginning or end of the day (or both). This way people don't have to chit-chat in meetings because they know they can do it another time.

4. Do you still have too many meetings?

Schedule meeting-free days. I suggest two per week, because people break these and schedule meetings anyway. Block off your calendar all day.

Fight zoom fatigue. Require all meetings end 5 minutes early for every 30 minutes. So, 25 minutes for a 30 min meeting, 50 minutes for an hour meeting. Start the clock at the beginning of the meeting, don't wait 5 minutes for people to join. (Mention this in the meeting invite)

Have your whole team agree to block off their lunch time. Meeting flex time is nice, but not when it prevents people from eating and resting. This can be on an individual basis or group basis, but everybody's calendar should have a 1 hour block sometime during the day.

Have your team decide on a maximum number of meeting hours per day. Once your calendar has hit the max, start rejecting meetings, or cancel less important meetings. If your whole day is meetings, you better be a manager with 30 direct reports or something.