SmartBrief ran an article this week about what it takes to have better meetings at work and, while well-intentioned, the story has some problems. Meetings, of course, are the bane of just about every 9-to-5er out there, as some jobs spend at least 20% if not 50%, in the company of others, talking about strategy or talking about talking about strategy.
Take a read, first. Here are my comments.
1. The central premise is shorter meetings (22 mins). Any time requirement is going to be arbitrary. Having more of a process/methodology to use to discuss/consider one major theme is probably more effective. Some meetings may only need to be 12 mins or whatever the abbreviated time window is. But an ultimate time cap is probably a good idea, it just doesn’t need to be a fixed time.
2. The standing meeting concept is from Agile, I think, and the whole point is to use physical exhaustion as a constraint, to hedge against a mtg going on and on. I think this is stupid, to be honest, Let people be comfortable, If you can’t keep people on a schedule without physically wearing them out, you shouldn’t be running a mtg in the first place.
3. The quote from the guy at Cisco, that is mgmt speak run amok. No idea what he’s talking about. Does not belong in a story about clear communication, although I enjoy the irony.
4. “Tell stories”. Like many cases when “storytelling” gets mentioned, I think the actual point is “use clear examples” or “draw analogies”. The goal isn’t really stories as much as it is to help people visualize what success looks like.
The solution, as always, is not to rigidly dictate a best practice. It’s to design and refine the best way for everyone involved.
© 2021 GRcreative. All rights reserved.