| ▲ | CuriouslyC a day ago |
| No, meetings are low information density because people are too lazy to plan an agenda and assign homework to a meeting beforehand, so that the meeting can focus on solutioning and actually delivering value. I noped out of management track to focus on being a top level IC because I could informally do the actually valuable "management" stuff in that role anyhow (documentation, planning, mentoring, client consultation, etc) without the expectation that I'd get sucked into 5 hours of meetings a day. Leadership still knows who I am and what I do, now I just have someone else to relay a lot of the little shit, and when I communicate with them it's about really important shit that needs reiterating. I have a lot of informal relationships with people because I'm a go-to, so I can still play office politics if I want. |
|
| ▲ | fnordpiglet a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Homework before hand is an anti pattern IMO. It assumes people aren’t busy in the rest of their day and the meeting scheduler is inflating the toll of the meeting with a hidden prep tax. This is how people end up with 12 hour days. Bezos forbade pre-meeting homework at Amazon for this reason. He was having a hard time keeping up with everything and the meetings were basically people recriminating each other for not being prepared then having to take up the first part of the meeting with catching everyone up anyways. So he structured meetings at Amazon as an introductory period of reading so everyone was always on the same page once discussion began. No slideshows, just reading a document of n pages where n is less than 6. I personally find the high level IC pseudomanager role sad. I went back to IC to be closer to the metal. But the expectation is I’ll be a product manager, program manager, and people manager all in one while the focused roles work in a self limited silo. |
| |
| ▲ | phil21 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | All bezos did was explicitly make the homework a required part of calling a meeting. Correctly putting the majority of the prep work on the person calling the meeting to begin with. Then they simply moved the implied 20-30 minute prep time everyone should be doing anyways into the meeting block itself. If a meeting isn’t important enough to prep materials or an agenda for the meeting should be canceled. My theory is all standing scheduled regular meetings are basically useless. If I run a startup again they will be outright banned for my org. Meetings about a specific topic or issue are different. | | |
| ▲ | sitkack 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I know a guy that can run those meetings. He meets with all the stake holders, determines their desired outcomes, makes sure they are all prepped. Starts the meeting, sets the goals and the ground rules. As soon as the meeting exit criteria are met (either another meeting, more homework or a decision has been made) the meeting is over. Done. Most meetings with this guy lasted 12-17 minutes. His job was toilsome, but he saved everyone else. I am getting teary eyed just thinking about it. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jowea a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't that significantly increase the need for more meeting rooms? |
| |
| ▲ | bumby a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I might disagree on this. For a meeting that covers any moderately complex situation to be productive, the attendees need to understand the context. That sounds like what Bezos was after. Doing “homework” beforehand ensures that people aren’t sitting idly while one person is reading the report for the first time or otherwise trying to bring themselves up to speed on the context everyone else already knows. I don’t think that’s the best use of everyone’s time, unless you expect meetings to be the primary objective of those attendees. It sounds to me that leadership should be delegating decisions to people who understand the context rather than spending time at every meeting going over background. Of course, that only works well in high-trust environments. |
|
|
| ▲ | burningChrome a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> No, meetings are low information density because people are too lazy to plan an agenda and assign homework to a meeting beforehand, so that the meeting can focus on solutioning and actually delivering value. Honest question, how many people have this happening at where they work? Most of the meetings where I work at now are on Teams, and are (for the most part) recorded so if people need to drop, or miss it because they can't make it for some reason. This also allows people to go back and watch at a faster speed or skip to presentations or important parts. The huge advantage is those meetings have a transcript so you can also read or scan the transcript instead. I'm just wondering if in 2025 people are still having meaningless meetings. |
|
| ▲ | ajmurmann a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my experience the biggest issue with homework beforehand is that a substantial portion of the attendees won't do the homework. Frequently it's the people who you most needed to have done the homework. Now you need to rehash it for them anyways and everyone who did the homework has their time wasted. That's one area where the Amazon Silent Read shines. The other way I found it very useful is that people leave comments on the areas that need discussion and now you can spend the rest of the meeting just on those points. Would be great to have left the notes before the meeting but that's where reality sabotages things. |
| |
| ▲ | bumby a day ago | parent [-] | | I’ve admired meeting stewards who will adjourn the meeting if people aren’t prepared and reconvene it later. If that person has authority and is well respected, it only has to happen once or twice, but obviously it can’t be applied everywhere. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Often, the purpose of the meeting is to get a busy VP to listen to some proposal and then say “yes.” That VP was booked solid for three weeks, and is booked solid for the next three weeks. This is his only 15 minute free time slot. Aint no way anyone’s going to adjourn this meeting just because someone isn’t prepared. | | | |
| ▲ | ajmurmann a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's nice when that works and sets a good cultural signal. Unfortunately, the more important the meeting the harder this is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Man people who talk like you must work in absolutely miserable companies. Meetings at my workplace are to the point, never longer than they need to be, and while yeah I weasel out of as many as I feel I can, I don't send an AI notetaker nor do I need it summarized. We meet for a topic, we discuss that topic, usually bullshit for a little in and around the topic, and then we get back to work. I would say most of our half-hour scheduled meetings are 10 minutes, and most of our hour scheduled ones are about 30-40 depending what it is. If we have a LOT to do, VERY occasionally, we actually use up the full time and then end things promptly because we all have more to do. We don't backstab or plot on one another, our work relationships are built on mutual respect for one another's contribution to our goals. Meetings (nor even being in leadership) are not about jockeying for power, they're about enabling the best of us to help push our goals forward. I'm getting whole new kinds of appreciation for my job and it's deliberately small, flattened structure because apparently the default state of business is to turn into high school with higher stakes, and I would genuinely rather run into traffic than work at some of these places. |
| |
| ▲ | dangus a day ago | parent [-] | | The truth is that people who talk like that aren’t management material. “I noped out of the management track” = “nobody was considering me for the management track” | | |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 'Tech lead' in a lot of companies is a hybrid track that gets funneled into a 'director' level roles, which is almost fully management. Just like scientists evolve into PIs, which also entails mostly management. | |
| ▲ | ElevenLathe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | IMO management positions are mostly lobbied for/created by try-hard social climbers, at least initially. "We're taking a lot of X work, maybe I should lead a team to deal with that?" "Y has so many reports, maybe I can form a subgroup to help with that?" Creating new positions for people who want to be more important than they are right now is the main mechanism by which private orgs expand. Doing this is considered proof that this person is a natural leader who steps up to solve organizational problems and get things done. You can guess why this leads to many many layers of management mostly just having meetings with each other, and a confused bottom layer of people who have to use this deliberately broken human telephone to communicate with their real ultimate bosses, the owners. | | |
| ▲ | smaudet a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I have a suspicion managers will become redundant sooner than tech workers, although certain big CEOs love to try to say otherwise... (wonder why...). An (good) AI manager is far more efficient than any human manager, and doesn't need to resort to this tiered system. In theory, they are far faster any any human manager too, meaning the company can scale around them without any issue. Maybe you still have a board that reviews decisions at a high level, and an office of human manager cogs that can review the individual AI decisions, but then your company structure can become such that a corp of 1k+ individuals can _directly communicate with their customer(s)_ Now, of course I'm not going to pretend that this won't come with its own share of issues, but that's what the "manager cogs" are for... | | |
| ▲ | ElevenLathe a day ago | parent [-] | | I have the same suspicion that ultimately we will be working for the machines (which are owned by investors) rather than the other way around. |
| |
| ▲ | Talanes a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >and a confused bottom layer of people who have to use this deliberately broken human telephone to communicate with their real ultimate bosses, the owners. Which just feels like efficiency if you're the owner: less people reaching out to you with problems! | | |
| ▲ | ElevenLathe a day ago | parent [-] | | Exactly, the dysfunction comes from the top: the unelected investor class. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bumby a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >“nobody was considering me for the management track” I don’t know if this holds any more than saying “the only people who get into management are those that couldn’t hack it in the technical side”. There are many people who get recruited for certain management tracks and turn it down so they can put more focus on technical problems. IMO at the end of the day, every job is about solving problems and it’s up to you to choose the track that aligns with the problems you want to work on. Some want to focus on people and administration, others want to focus on technical problems. A problem arises when orgs only have one route to promotion (eg, you must get into management if you want to be promoted). | | |
| ▲ | dangus 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point is that the comment’s author clearly doesn’t have the right attitude/skillset to succeed in management. It would be like me saying I noped out of the starting lineup of the LA Lakers to with on the custodial staff. |
| |
| ▲ | tauwauwau a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I pray for souls who are considered to be management material. | | |
| ▲ | bravetraveler 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Promoted to their incompetence. The Peter Principle or as I prefer: "growth mindset meets reality" This thread is insane. Plenty of people have turned down managerial opportunities. The inevitable path for any IC is this offer. Countless have told stories of their regret for either path. |
|
|
|