Against Meetings
Meetings seem like they should be easy because they are ubiquitous. This appearance of innocence hides serious hazards.
Most meetings suffer badly from being run by people who don’t know how to run meetings. Not like, can’t run meetings according to Robert’s Rules of Order. Just basically running a meeting that doesn’t suck.
Even when run well, meetings have a lot of potential traps.
Things to watch for:
- quiet people overshadowed by the assertive
- bikeshedding: long discussion of spurious concerns
- endless debate of equivalent options
- criticisms instead of suggestions
- arguments in place of discussion
- departure from the meeting’s agenda
The biggest hazard of meetings, though, is that most programmers really don’t want to be in meetings.
In Defense of Meetings
Right, so why have a meeting at all? This is a great question with dozens of flippant answers. Beyond the jokes, though, meetings can actually be very valuable.
First, a meeting is a high bandwidth, full-duplex communication channel. Verbal communications arrive at mutual understanding significantly more quickly than written comms. Lots of information can be efficiently delivered.
Second, lots of people are better at processing verbal language than written language. A meeting gives an opportunity to go over written artifacts and get everyone to the same approximate understanding.
Third, teams thrive on shared experience. Direct interactions build team identity and establish individuals within the team context. A meeting can help get everyone congruent with the larger vision.
So, the answer to “why meet?” is: to blast, to sync, or to align. Or because your boss tells you to.
Making Meetings Work
One thing will make a tremendous difference. A few other things will help.
Having an agenda will completely change the utility of a meeting. With an agenda, even poorly run meetings that everyone dreads will still be productive.
Conversely, meetings without an agenda only do not typically yield much value.
An agenda is like a contract for the meeting. It says what will be discussed and in what detail. It’s both vision and ground rules. Sometimes an actual agenda seems too rigid or too formal. A list of questions to answer or a sort of statement of purpose will supply the same kind of shape to a meeting, if a little less stridently.
Of course, having an agenda or a list of items to discuss or purpose statement — these are a good foundation, and maybe sufficient, but probably not.
Also try:
- Having a designated moderator.
- Redirect discussions of details to follow up.
- Redirect contentious issues to follow up.
- Keep to a timeline and redirect extended discussion to follow up.
- Refer investigation of unknowns to follow up.
- Identify specific people for each follow up.
- Wrap up the meeting by reviewing action items
Making Meetings Interesting
Attendees prefer meetings when they have clear purpose and good pacing. We’ve addressed meaning, above, with an agenda. Pacing requires balancing focus against fellowship.
A brisk meeting that snaps through line items will keep people challenged and listening. However, the intensity of such an experience may fatigue people very quickly.
Loosening things up a little will let people enjoy each other’s company, and will prevent burnout. Too loose, though, and the meeting stops being useful and starts being a social experience.
In summary:
- Considering the merits of meetings helps you know when to hold one
- Planning your meeting’s goals and how to reach them should make the meeting easier to run
- Practice at pacing and execution will make your meetings a delight to attend