Forgot your password?

Percent of my work life spent in meetings:

Displaying poll results.
1-20
  11640 votes / 58%
21-40
  2667 votes / 13%
41-60
  1016 votes / 5%
61-80
  401 votes / 2%
81-100
  270 votes / 1%
I don't go to meetings, by choice.
  2828 votes / 14%
I don't go to meetings, but I'd rather.
  910 votes / 4%
19732 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Percent of my work life spent in meetings:

Comments Filter:
  • by mcmonkey (96054) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @02:50PM (#36379392) Homepage

    But the poll is missing > 100

    (Or maybe it just feels that way. Without a laptop, WiFi, and privacy screen, I'd never have time for any actual work.)

    • There should definitely be a 1%, but greater than 0.
    • I was once working on a project where we had four or five large companies working together to bid on it, with about fifty people at the prime contractor's location. At one point we noticed that there were more than forty hours a week of scheduled meetings. This was actually quite liberating - it was obvious that if you went to all the meetings, you wouldn't have time to get any real work done, so it was ok to blow off anything you didn't really need to be at, except for the daily status meeting which usu

    • by Creepy (93888)

      heh - that was my former boss - double booked meetings 60 hours a week. No idea how she ever got her job done on top of that, but she did. Good manager, but left because it was too much work and they weren't offloading it. Now that work is sanely done by at least 3 people instead of one (due tor a reorg and me being moved to a different group, I'm only aware of the projects I used to be responsible for because they contact me often).

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @02:51PM (#36379406) Homepage

    ...you insensitive clod.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      They never invite me anymore...

      If that bothers you, then the last option is your obvious choice. If you're happy with that state of affairs, though, I agree that you've got no valid options on this poll--a fact I was about to point out when I spotted your post.

    • They never invite me anymore... you insensitive clod.

      The second last option, "I don't go to meetings, by choice.", is obviously the one for you. Nobody said the choice was yours. You don't go to meetings by the choice of those who did not invite you.

  • I'd say about 8% - 10% of my time is in meetings. More if you count conference calls that don't really pertain to me but someone things I just have to be present for... I don't count myself as present, as I'll be there but only pay enough attention to catch any relevant parts while I'm mostly focusing on work.

    What about when you're walking through the building and run into someone, where a quick couple minute conversation turns into a longer more detailed informal "meeting". I didn't count these, but they

    • by Anrego (830717) *

      What about when you're walking through the building and run into someone, where a quick couple minute conversation turns into a longer more detailed informal "meeting".

      Yup. Where I work this is how a lot of stuff ends up getting resolved. It's good in that it's quick and stuff gets resolved "right now", but it's bad because stuff gets out of sync, and there is always someone who really should have been involved in the discussion and you always feel like an ass sending a "hey man, Bob and I talked and decided we should do things this way" email afterwards.

      • by Gorobei (127755)

        Hey, that's how a lot of real stuff gets done.

        If there are too many people involved, you both just chat to your own bosses about the "agreed upon" direction, the two bosses talk to each other and are happy "everyone" agrees on the plan, and you're done. You even get bonus credit for calling up the third parties and "letting them on how the bosses are going to proceed."

    • Where I work it is just me and the boss, is it a meeting whenever we talk? It technically is a company-wide gathering...
  • by metlin (258108) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @03:14PM (#36379654) Journal

    As a management consultant, I'm sad to say at least 50% (of my life, which is a lot). Fortunately, I've also found ways to be productive in meetings without being disruptive, and to turn down meetings longer than half hour (with very, very few exceptions).

    Meetings are like a necessary evil, especially in a social, consensus-driven society like ours. I wonder if societies that are less "democratic" have any fewer meetings than ours.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm in the army, an officer working in engineering. I spend around 40-50% of my time in meetings. Highly hierarchic systems don't have less meetings - they are very organized, though, and pretty efficient.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        I'm an AF medical administrator. And will echo this. I'm in meetings 50% of the day, but they are very productive.
    • Consensus doesn't require meetings, it can be reached quickly and easily with brief one-on-one discussions between intelligent people with the same goals. If you find it difficult to reach consensus, then it means that either you are not dealing with intelligent people (or possibly the people you are meeting are not) or, more commonly, you do not have the same goals. As a management consultant, the entire point of your job to solve the latter problem.
  • by Bucc5062 (856482) <bucc5062@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @03:19PM (#36379732)

    Lately I feel these polls are more data gathering for Slashdot then the humorous/insight polls they use to be. What are the editors really up to? How many printers, how many screens (ui devices), how this how many that? No taco options or Cowboy Neil options....Were my tin foil hat on I'd speculate they are just a poor mans version of the marketing bots attached to almost every website around. "Want to know the demographics of /.'ers, we've got data for you".

    As to meetings, they are a dirge to forward progress of development if they take more then 30 minutes in a day. I don't feel design discussions are meetings if there is a clear goal to be achieved. Status updates, reviews...these take way to long for their contribution to the overall project. I can't wait for the 22nd century so we can finally use this great 21st century technology to communicate and track projects. Lets begind the meme "I am the Office" and suffocate the idea that we need to actually get in a vehicle and drive to do actual work. Oh yeah, wont be around then...damn!

    • Status updates, reviews...these take way to long for their contribution to the overall project.

      Well, I guess you're right that doing your status updates during meetings is bad. Then again, Facebook has always been the biggest productivity killer known to man.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      What do you think is Slashdot doing with the data collected from polls?

      - Sell it to Facebook
      - Sell it to Google
      - Sell it to Microsoft
      - Sell it to Richard Stallman
      - Sell it to bank investors as small packages of debt
      - It's a CowboyNeal's erotic fetish

    • One ship I was on, the XO banned all meetings from 8 to noon. It guaranteed at least 4 hours of solid productivity for all concerned, which was welcomed by everyone.
      • No, it guarantees 4 hours of uninterrupted sleep for the senior officers, excluding the officer of the watch.
  • Observations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lazarus (2879) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @03:24PM (#36379790) Journal

    I've been in this IT business full-time for 22 years. Both as an employee and as a contractor. My experience has been that the number of meetings I am asked to attend is directly proportional to my pay.

    I had 19 meetings last week. Somewhere between 15 and 22 is a typical week for me. And not a week goes by that I don't wish I could give up the money and go back to some quiet uninterrupted hacking. But I'm afraid that I'm not as sharp as I used to be. And the golden handcuffs are very strong.

    Bottom line: If you're a geek, and you're happy, don't let them suck you into responsibility. Biggest mistake I ever made was cutting my hair. If I had to do it all over again, I'd stay the socially inept technical genius. Fuck them. Money isn't everything.

    • by Improbus (1996348)
      Damn, I already cut my hair! On the bright side I am still a socially inept technical genius.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I found the opposite. When I was hacking for work, all I could do when I got home was get away from the computer, get away from email, and rest my hacking mind. I *wanted* to bimble about on my own projects, but the mindspace I had was filled with work. All I could do well was exercise my social side.

      Now I'm in meetings more than 50% of my working life, I'm earning three times my all-day-hacking pay, and wouldn't you know, I fucking LIKE it. I get to tell people what to do, I got to pick my team, and they'r

    • "But I'm afraid that I'm not as sharp as I used to be."

      Try it. I have recently stopped full time work after 25 non-stop years in IT, mostly as a systems designer / team lead / architect. Apart from a few short consulting gigs I have spent the last year coding. Working on a game I originally started back in 1989 (written in Turbo Pascal 6 / ASM back then). It has been fantastic.

      The most amazing thing is how much you can get done on your own with modern tools.

      • The most amazing thing is how much you can get done on your own with modern tools.

        And how little you can get done with modern management techniques...

        The VPRI guys estimate that good tools make about a factor of 100 difference to the productivity of individual coders. Various people estimate the difference between a good coder and an average coder as a factor of somewhere between 10 and 100. This means that a good developer with good tools can be as much as 10,000 times as productive as an average developer with poor tools. And yet, management in a lot of companies is unwilling to pa

    • by ratbag (65209)

      Except for the hair bit (mine went grey and fell out), your story is similar to mine. I ended up in management a few years ago and all the joy (really) went out of my working life (whilst the salary grew to 'more than I need'). It got to the stage that my health suffered due in part to general stress, but in particular the number and length of meetings, along with the number of people in them (guess my health problem, amateur psychologists!).

      So I gave up the money (sort of) and went back to quiet uninterrup

    • by metlin (258108)

      Money isn't everything.

      Amen, brother. I wish someone had told me that when I was younger.

      The problem is that once you're used to a better pay and a better lifestyle, going back is not really an option.

      So, you put up with it. But as you get older, you get more and more tired of the bullshit until you realize that money really isn't everything -- there's something to be said about happiness and peace of mind.

      • by Abstrackt (609015)

        The problem is that once you're used to a better pay and a better lifestyle, going back is not really an option.

        Why not? My wife and I wanted to be able to see each other on a regular basis so we moved into a smaller house and now work part-time. We certainly had to make some cutbacks, mainly to travel and "entertainment" (TV, eating out, fancy computer parts, etc.), and money is sometimes tight but we're living the life we love.

        When I was working the high pay, high stress job I envied the kids who didn't have to think past when to flip a burger; I don't miss any of that.

        • by metlin (258108)

          We really don't have much in the way of ancillary expenses (we cook, don't have a tv, no loans etc), but my wife is in school and won't be done for a while. Plus, I'd like to eventually do a PhD as well, and would Iike to have enough savings to sustain a good enough lifestyle (comfortable, without having to worry about splurging on the little things). Plus, there's always the next generation to think about. I don't have any kids yet, but I'd certainly like to ensure that they have the best (at the very leas

  • by SheeEttin (899897) <sheeettin@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @03:33PM (#36379916) Homepage
    0%.
    I'm unemployed, you insensitive clod.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Then vote: I don't go to meetings, but I'd rather.

      • by repetty (260322)

        I'm unemployed, you insensitive clod.

        Then vote: I don't go to meetings, but I'd rather.

        Gee, you're pretty cruel.

    • Re:0% (Score:5, Interesting)

      by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @03:59PM (#36380192) Homepage Journal

      Then you should be having many meeting.
      Either to plan, talk to people, create more contacts, or go to the appropriate users group meetings.
      When I was unemployed, I spent 20-30 hours in a meeting of some sort.

      Meeting poeple is far more effective then sending resumes.
      In fact, I would find a company that was hiring, and if they help user group meeting, I would go to those meet people and find a manager looking for someone.

      Far, far more effective then HR; however if they didn't have user groups, I would contact HR talk to some one as high up as a could and ask what they look for. How much time per resume. That tells you how critical they view your introductions.

      Hell, I know a guy who called a Jr. VP out of the blue, took him to lunch and schmooze a job that day.

      That was 20 years ago, and he still works there.

      • by RussR42 (779993)

        When I was unemployed, I spent 20-30 hours in a meeting of some sort.

        In a row?!?
        Try not to go to any meetings on the way to the submit button!

        • by mooingyak (720677)

          When I was unemployed, I spent 20-30 hours in a meeting of some sort.

          In a row?!?

          Try not to go to any meetings on the way to the submit button!

          Not only that, but he wasn't even supposed to be here today.

    • by blair1q (305137)

      The unemployment office is a meeting. So is an interview. So is being a bar-fly, if you ever ask yourself why you're there again.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      ITYM NaN (Not a Number: divide by zero error). I wonder if your faulty grasp of mathematics has anything to do with why you're still unemployed? :)

      But seriously, the poll is about work life, and I don't think that time spent unemployed qualifies, even if that's your current status. Unless you've never been employed, you should be able to answer the question. (If you have never been employed, then NaN would be an appropriate response.)

      • by SheeEttin (899897)

        But seriously, the poll is about work life

        Hahaha whoops. >_>
        Yeah, I see the word "work" now. Not sure how I missed that.
        But yeah, I guess NaN would be a more accurate response. :P

  • I no longer have the option of refusing those meetings I am invited to,

    One boss I worked for refused any meeting invite sent without an agenda,

    Ahh meetings the useless alternative to work.

  • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @04:48PM (#36380624) Journal

    This poll's selections are clearly distributed improperly.

    If you'd come to the meetings, that wouldn't have happened.

  • Just glad I don't have to play those wage slave games anymore.
  • I'm retired. I don't have any "work life". But because of my volunteer activities, I spend about 2-4 hours a month attending meetings. Lately, I've also been working on a book with 3 other co-authors. This means about 5 hours of meetings a month.

    When I did work, I had a manager who believed in "stand up meetings". Everyone had to stand during the meetings. He believed the meetings would be shorter and focus on being productive if our feet and backs hurt. This ended when a coworker became pregnant; af

    • "This ended when a coworker became pregnant"

      I guess everyone else standing hid the action from the manager.....

    • by Nyeerrmm (940927)

      That sounds great. My least favorite part of meetings is sitting. If I'm stuck sitting there for more than an hour I get antsy.

      I can work during meetings if it would otherwise be a waste of time for me to participate -- and I've learned which meetings are actually important after a year on the job. But sitting for that long, even if its worthwhile, just drives me up the wall.

  • I've a boss who assigns me work (well, duh) and his idea of gathering information is calling a meeting. Mine is reading, thinking, emailing and talking to people, one-on-one. I think some people just have meetings because, well, they think that's the pinnacle of office existence.
    • by IrquiM (471313)
      Or, they actually want to discuss stuff that's useful for more than 1 person, and to avoid having to say it 15 times, they call a meeting?
  • I am really good at getting out of going to meetings "I can't or I will get overtime."

    • My hourly rate scales depending on how interesting the project is. Time spent in meetings or interacting with bureaucracy adds a minimum 4x penalty, which scales up depending on how irritating I find it. This quickly pushes it into the 'you can't afford me' category. Companies either let me be productive, or they find someone else to be productive for them. As a side effect, not having to deal with the same crap that salaried employees put up with makes me seem much more productive in comparison, so I c
  • by Wolfling1 (1808594) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @06:40PM (#36381884) Journal
    Meetings! The easy alternative to work!

    I'll never forget the day a government employee turned to me and said 'Can we cut out these meetings? Its such a huge waste of the tax-payers' money.'

    /notsureiftrollingface.jpg
  • Meetings! (Score:4, Funny)

    by miltonw (892065) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @06:52PM (#36382006)
    I used to work for a very meeting-happy company. Too many meetings and most were utterly useless.

    I'd kick off an "at" command just before a meeting that would page me in 10 minutes. I'd get the page and, if the meeting was typical (meaning useless), I'd look very concerned and quietly excuse myself. If I really needed to be at the meeting, I'd look at the pager, look relieved, and ignore it. Worked perfectly.

    As a bonus, the bosses at the meetings thought I was very busy all the time.
    • I just make a big show of shutting off the ringer on my phone. Shows respect for the meeting. Then if the meeting is a waste of time (Usually) I pull out my phone, poke at the screen and then excuse myself.
      Works every time.
  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @07:01PM (#36382078) Journal
    We have a daily debriefing that takes anywhere from five minutes to an hour every day, but the hour long staff meetings are at most once a month, are are typically scheduled after hours, at a restaurant on the company's time, with alcohol to help us cope with the tedium. As all long staff meetings should be.
    • When I ran gas stations I would have my staff meetings in the local lounge (pub to those in the UK). It was in the evening, everyone was paid three hours even if the meeting was only 15 minutes and it often served as a good team building exercise. Easy to screw over someone you see five minutes a day during shift change, not so much after you've gone drinking with them. And they worked as a great way to figure out who wouldn't last. If you didn't come to them (they were not manditory), it was pretty obvious

  • It's so I know what happens in the next change window. And then, a meeting about what is planned for the next month. That's all ok, but most of the meeting is about Windows servers which I have no responsibility for. /shrug I only have to know about stuff every couple of months.

  • Meetings are a decent measure of communication cost, which the classic "Mythical Man Month" describes as an increasing drain on productivity.

    • Unfortunately, I've met a few people who take that to mean that the way to increase productivity is to decrease communication.
  • Mom: "So, you fly around the country and meet with all these people, but what do you actually do?"

    Me: "Uhhh.... I fly around the country and meet with a bunch of people. I don't know. I guess I am doing it well, I got a good review..."

    Definitely a Dilbert moment....

  • I go to two meetings on a regular basis:

    The company-wide meeting is where they announce happenings in our industry and talk about upcoming events. This takes about 15 minutes every other week.

    The IT department meeting is where we go around the room and talk about what we've been working on since the last meeting, and tell each other things like "my stuff is overlapping your project, and I'll need to meet with you soon to figure out how this one part is going to work." These last about 20 minutes, every othe

  • They stopped inviting me to meetings when I started blowing spit bubbles on the conference table.

  • by PPH (736903)

    I sleep like a baby through meetings.

    I wake up every hour screaming and shitting in my pants.

  • Problem with the poll is that it's 90+% during the work day - but during the 'work life' it's probably 60% - gives you an idea on how I spend my time..

  • by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @12:13AM (#36384022) Homepage Journal

    Try scheduling a "fake" meeting. Go into whatever calendaring application your organization uses and block out a few hours each day for a meeting with yourself that won't happen. You can even title the meeting with whatever you think you'll be working on (e.g., code review for new widget). If someone later finds you at your desk when said meeting was supposed to happen, you can always say that the other people couldn't make it but you decided to keep working on whatever it was at your cubicle.

    I worked at a company in the mid-1990s that ran on meetings. No one did anything until there was a meeting to decided how something should be done. The only way to get anything done was to avoid enough meetings so that you could actually present a solution when the subject came up at a meeting you couldn't avoid. The technical people loved it but the bean counters, project managers and other non-technical folks hated it.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    • As an solutions architect I found booking out either mornings or afternoons was the only way to get my documentation done. That or work very late.

      I ended up doing both.

    • by oneiros27 (46144)

      It doesn't even have to technically be a meeting ... you're blocking out periods that you have to get work done, and most jobs have tasks that need some stretches of uninterrupted time to get them done.

      My boss would go for it ... but unfortunately, the network we're on I don't think has access to the group calendar program, so people can assign me to meetings, but I don't think I can go in there and do it myself. (I *know* I can't go and reserve conference rooms, at least ... I think it's the same system)

      • There was a culture of "meetings are more important than anything" where I worked that brought on the "book a meeting with yourself" ploy. If you just blocked out time, someone would pay you a visit and request that you come to a meeting. However, being booked for another meeting meant that they would leave you alone since they assumed the other meeting involved other people and therefore was important. On the other hand, getting real work done wasn't important.

        Cheers,
        Dave

      • It doesn't even have to technically be a meeting ... you're blocking out periods that you have to get work done, and most jobs have tasks that need some stretches of uninterrupted time to get them done.
        My boss would go for it ...

        My boss has recommended such things. And one of the directors in the company blocks out noon-1pm every day so no one schedules him a day full of meetings with no lunch.

        Most of my meetings are recurring meetings. I have 2/week with our vendor, 1/week with my boss and the rest of his team, one maintenance review a week, and generally that's it -- unless there's preplanning meetings for maintenances that I have to be part of, or we start on a new project (in which case, there's usually a 1 hour/week call)

    • Our company had an a**hole who used to schedule meetings starting at 9AM, between noon and 2 PM, and starting art 4:30PM. I guess he used to look at everyone's schedules in Microsoft Exchange Calendar, see no one was free at those times, and schedule meetings then.

      So what I started doing was putting in fake meetings/events for all of those times. For 9 AM-10AM I'd have "Morning survey of all computers" or whatever. For 4PM-5PM I'd have "End of day computer checklist run through". I forget what I did f

  • I'm a programmer, and I find that far too many of my colleagues assume that any and all meetings are inherently worthless. I've worked in teams who got great value out of well-directed meetings. We avoid double-handling problems, we get better use out of the various experience our team members have... It can just work so well.

    It's such a shame that so many places get it so wrong, and so much IT talent has never experienced the increased productivity you can get out of meetings done right.

  • by bughunter (10093) <bughunter&earthlink,net> on Thursday June 09, 2011 @08:42AM (#36387264) Journal

    In 30 years of working in government contract aerospace, I learned a number of things about meetings. They're a social tool more than anything else.

    I stopped attending as many meetings as I could avoid when I observed that the more meetings I attended, the more tasks I accumulated. I frequently found that I would leave a meeting more "behind" than when I entered it. I even drew a graph of "amount of work completed" on the Y-axis and "time spent in meetings" on the x-axis, with a y=1-x line to illustrate this.

    Then I realized that the first order coefficient was greater than one, so that if one spent enough time in meetings, one would accumulate more work than one could perform outside of the conference room... so the curve became y=1-ax, with the axes conveniently labeled only at 0 and 100% so that I did not have to estimate the value of a (because that would be too much like work).

    I also realized that the more people invited to a meeting, the fewer decisions would be made. I could tell this in advance, because if everyone showed up to a meeting with a large invite list, then everyone would want a voice, and consensus would be reached on fewer topics. If few people showed up, this was even worse, because no one would want to make a decision on anything without a quorum, even if the point was one of obvious consensus.

    The exception to the above, however, was one in which one or more director level or above managers are invited. In this kind of a meeting, the object is not to build consensus, but to stroke the ego of the manager, or, if more than one is present, to allow them to engage in political sparring so that they may [re-]establish their rank order in the primate corporate hierarchy. If enough people did not show up to one of these meetings, they would task the people who did show with rounding up enough witnesses to their grandeur. But attending these meetings was risky, because if you showed up, you were likely to be assigned work if only to demonstrate your subordinate rank, but if you didn't show, you could be assigned the worst tasks as the beta primates laughed and said "We'll assign it to bughunter because he's not here," which was a means of demonstrating to the others that shit rolls downhill and they are on higher ground than you.

    Now I work for a small company where meetings are unnecessary, I report to the CEO and he visits me twice a day to tell me I'm wrong even when I'm right. Meetings only happen when it's necessary to get the CEO and CTO in the same room so that they can compete for alpha male status. Otherwise, the company is small enough that they can visit every primate in their troop in a single day and throw shit on them personally; they don't need to gather them into small rooms and fling feces by the handful. But I do get a lot of work done.

  • The notion of the solo engineer solving the "hard" problem on their own is so rare as to be a myth (not withstanding Stallman, Torvald and Woz). Sure, there are simple tasks that can be solved by sitting in front of a compiler for 80 hour stretches and banging out Java/C++ code, but that's mostly grunt work after the big ideas have been fleshed out. The "big idea" work that drives the vision that spawns all the fun coding projects are the results of hours of collaboration in... meetings. There's nothing

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      None of your examples count either. Stallman and Torvalds all excel at getting other people involved in the design and development. Woz always struck me as a bit more of a soloist, but even he was staying in contact with Captain Crunch, the Homebrew Club, people he knew at HP, etc.

      And consider that the best hacking efforts of the 20th century came out of the heavily collaborative Bell Labs.

  • I'm responding to this poll and typing this comment while I am... in a meeting.
  • you insensitive clod!

  • Pro-tip: If you count bathroom time as "meetings" this pool becomes much funnier. I'm sorry, he can't take your call right now, he's in a meeting.
  • But even that feels like too much.
  • As a commercial dogwalker I'm lucky enough that my meetings are almost always with four legged clients, most of whom can be bought off with liver snacks.
  • Maybe one hour a week on average:1/168 = 0.595%

    • You might want to find some time to sleep somewhere in there. And set aside at least an hour a week for showering and washing your clothes. Your coworkers will thank you.

  • I have two hobbies that involve more meetings than any real job ever did. Funny how I'll do for free what I'd never do for pay.
  • In my experience, meetings are largely obsolete now that everyone's always reachable by e-mail, phone, Skype, whatever. If I need to know or tell something to someone, I just send an e-mail or give them a call. I don't really see the point of regular meetings, especially with more than a handful of people. I do meet with clients, but usually only to make a sale or kick off a project. I spend maybe an hour a week on average with that sort of thing, but some weeks there's none of that at all. The rest of the
  • But that's also defining "standups" as meetings.

  • I went from about 1 productive meeting a year (anything with 4 or more people counts as a meeting in my book) to 3+ worthless meetings per week ranging anywhere from 1 to 4 hours each. Very few of the meetings went beyond "vision" and "concept" which is bad when my job is to implement. It makes little sense to have your "doers" in a conceptual meeting. If I'm not "doing" or at least discussing the specific details of implementing a project, I'm not doing what I'm getting paid to do and I'll be unhappy.

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...