I’ve lost count of how many meetings end right where they started. So much talking, no real direction, and when someone actually offers something useful, it gets dismissed. Why is it that the people running things can’t tell the difference between noise and insight?
7 replies (most recent on top)
Office workers should never be paid more than essential frontline workers who make the world run smoothly. Ever. Watching the uprising coming.
These companies need to track ASAP exactly what employees do all day. Every hour. Because A LOT of things are finished in 15 mins and then they play minesweeper or read books or games or leave and go wherever on company $$$$. These jobs are not worth more than 10k and that's high.
Black tie & ball gown meetings to say leverage and circle-back? Big houses and BMW's?
Meanwhile go to the nearest hospital or firehouse.
This entire website is LOL
It means your group doesn’t have enough work for everyone.
When meeting numbers and duration increases and never decreases, it’s a huge sign.
Get your resume ready and start looking. I was in your spot three years ago. But at 62 I just retired after the severance.
YMMV
Intel required a 1/2 mandatory in person class on running and attneding Effective Meetings. 25 years alter I still use the structure. Here is the essence of it; it really worked and everyone at Intel was singing from the same hymnal:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Inside+Intel%27s+meeting+culture.-a055007185
It is an epidemic created by the consultant goons in India who believe that more is better for you. That is why Agile methodology was invented but there again, the Indian consultant losers have worked on destroying that philosophy. They believe in bulldozing and overwhelming the clients and employees with so much BS, that sanity will never prevail.
I was as guilty as anyone. Most people in IBM have bees in their bonnets. It never takes long to figure out what grinds whose gears. Whenever I wanted to steer the conversation away from where it was heading, I would drop in a "of course, issue X will need to be considered." That would light up someone and burn some meeting time. Top tip: to ki-l off most of the meeting, ask the most senior person there to explain his or her pet peeve.
Over the years, the name of the annual review process changed a number of times. I'll use PBC because that name was used for a while. Never once on a PBC did I (or anyone else) claim greatness for helping to make IBM meetings useful or productive. Never once did I (or anyone else) receive management feedback in the other direction. Also, in the annual employee satisfaction survey, there were occasional comments about questioning the necessity of some meetings but I don't really recall comments about the molasses in which most meetings were held.
Effective meeting chairing and effective meeting participation isn't on anyone's Think-40 list. No one wants to talk about it because another failed meeting is a shared failure. That leaves us with a situation where pointless meetings are part of the scenery and everyone just accepts it and gets on with their real jobs, In addition, calling meetings is seen as taking positive action; the more the better.
This is endemic across all IT outsourcing. It's only the talking and the endless status reports and waffle documents that make the money. Actually clicking the button takes seconds. You can't bill for that. The clients can't see it. Hence the problem persists.
It is because empty vessels maker the loudest noise and donkeys like the ones IBM employs en masse like the smell of their own farts. Used to see this in the IBM CIO Office and nothing has changed. No wonder Miz Wrong continues to run the F&O Sweatshop.