[ryandrake]

If people are checked out during meetings, maybe they don't really have to be there. When I set up a meeting I try to ensure only people who really, really need to be there are invited. Way too many meetings are like: "1. Eng Lead Presenter, 2. VP who's receiving the update, and 3-10. Team members involved in the project." If 3-10 are not expected to speak/contribute and already know what 1 is presenting, why the fuck are they there? To sit there and pick their noses? They could be a lot more focused and productive back at their desks (or not connected to video conference). I don't invite them, and if I invite them by mistake and they know they aren't contributing, I expect them to decline and not show up! I don’t want tourists at my meetings.

Companies where non-contributors and non-receivers feel pressured to come to meetings just to show their faces are Doing It Wrong.

[milesrout]

Or maybe they do have to be there, but they aren't paying attention? It isn't a given that people will pay attention if they need to, that is the whole point.

There are lots of reasons someone might be in a meeting. They might be there to receive certain information. They might be there because they're going to be assigned work as a result of it. They might be there because hearing the actual conversation with the client is useful for being able to understand the context of the work. Getting that third hand from someone that didn't talk to the client is nowhere near as good. That is what leads to wasting time and money doing work nobody wanted.

Sometimes people just don't pay attention when they should. That is real. It is not sensible to immediately assume they're justified in not paying attention. Even if you aren't needed and you aren't interested, it is your job. You are paid good money to be there. Your contract requires you to follow lawful instructions from your employer. Do the job properly and look at your phone at lunchtime. You don't have the right to switch off and start playing with your phone because you are a bit bored and have the attention span of a teenager brought up on Tiktok.

[gotoeleven]

Nope suppose they do need to be there and they arent listening because they're sending text messages and then when they are asked for their opinion they are lost because they weren't listening. This is the norm for zoom meetings.

[dijksterhuis]

it sounds to me like they don’t believe they need to be there / to care about the meeting, but you do.

that’s sounds like the real problem you need to address, the real underlying conflict between you and them.

so… why don’t they care about your meeting…?

if you can fix that problem, you might naturally solve the phone problem. they might start giving a shit.

[hardlianotion]

this is fixed for in person meetings is it?

[zmgsabst]

I’m a big proponent of optional and required on meeting invites.

Required: tech lead and VP.

Optional: everyone else.

I have nothing against people showing up just because they want to snoop on what’s being said and spending half the time on their phone — but I reply maybe to anything optional sent to me.

I find people sort themselves out if you have enough floating optional invites you can’t attend all of them.