Hacker News Reader

Comment by minot | Hacker News Reader

Just playing the devil’s advocate here based on the top comment but what do we really mean when we say this meeting could be an email?

Perhaps, the meeting isn’t interactive enough? Why have a meeting at all if not everyone in the meeting is providing input/asking questions? If the topic is already done and decided and the chapter is closed, I agree it could be an email to a list and you can reach out to the presenter with questions.

Things like when a boss calls a meeting to say we are working from home until further notice and nobody is allowed to talk. But if we allow people to raise their hand and ask questions and things can change based on participant input then maybe a meeting is warranted? Just thinking out loud...

View on HN

It generally means that all of the signal amidst the noise and confusion that took up 30 minutes to an hour, multiplied across all the participants, could have been distilled down into 3-5 bullet points.

Most meetings are held to transfer information, in the most lossy format possible.

Is it though? It may be lossy to you because you are better and absorbing information through other means, however my point is that the social aspect is important for many to absorb information, even though it looks inefficient.

For example, many people are sheep who follow consensus —- meetings give an opportunity for them to establish consensus and hence accept and absorb it.

Note I am playing devils advocate here, I hate meetings but I think I get their role now

You know, our team at multiple points eliminated meetings almost entirely. And in another team, young boss was so afraid to not waste time, that only one person (manager/analyst) was at requirements gathering meeting.

In the first case, the team became dysfunctional each time it happened after like two months or so. In second case we were unable to make customer happy, because it turned out that a lot of information got lost. And programmers were unable to make good decisions.

Maybe the person you are responding to is not better then everyone. Because meetings are rarely about one way communication. Out is two way and lack of those back and forth and fights costs. And where meetings are about one way information, it a.) puts priority on it like this is more important b.) likely puts away people time to absorbed information. Because prior don't read long emails not just because they are stupid lazy, but because they have other priorities.

There are useless meetings too, but once you kill them all you will find out some of them were necessary.

Agreed with all your points

I think bosses like meetings because they're not as interested, sometimes, in people following the edicts as they are in people doing as _they_ say. It's important for them to be the one telling you and you having to obey. If you just did what an email says then that's just working for the business; the machine is working. If you attend a meeting then, it appears at least, the boss is the one who controls you rather than your actions being directed to the business needs you're [apparently] working for the boss. They say jump, you say how high.

Maybe it's minor megalomania. IME that's another reason for meetings.

Have you ever worked with humans? Cause I guarantee you that if you attempt to communicate via one way email only, your chance for failure will go super high. You will be unlikely to succeed.

Curious, are you a boss, or have you ever been?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com