[judge123]

this feels like advice for the person running the meeting, not the one being dragged into it. I'm just picturing myself telling my boss "Sorry, this meeting doesn't have a clear goal, so I'm dropping off." Anyone actually have the guts to do this when you're not the senior person in the room?

[9dev]

Can't speak for your boss, but I definitely am sometimes a few abstraction layers further up in concepts than the ICs on the team, and it's a lot more frustrating to realise the others don't really know what I'm getting at because I didn't create clear enough goals than getting that feedback right away.

People in leadership usually get there because they value time and efficiency, and if you don't spin that as "your agenda is trash" but "I cannot contribute to this meeting and would like to pursue my other tasks", I doubt they will be mad at you.

It can also be worth it to bring this up with your team and establish a meeting culture, as suggested in TFA. That way, you can discuss this openly and everyone has a shared understanding of what is okay.

[9rx]

> it's a lot more frustrating to realise the others don't really know what I'm getting at

I understand why it may initially seem frustrating to realize that you are not offering value to the team, but us ICs are used to recognizing that and quickly cutting you out of the picture. It is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Don't worry.

[9dev]

I'm not sure I understand your point. It's not like I do a poetry slam session in meetings, but work on the technical direction we're moving toward. I'm less worried about offering value than people not getting the information they need to do their job?

[fn-mote]

That’s a super cynical reply to a manager (engineering head) who said they would prefer people to tell them in the meeting what’s going wrong.

I would certainly be glad to have someone like that over my division.

[9rx]

What is cynical about reassuring a leader that they aren't needed?

You've failed as a leader if you find yourself being needed.

[9dev]

What do you mean by "needed" here? If leaders weren't needed in some capacity, they wouldn't exist. Teams definitely do need leaders, to simply agree on a direction to move into to begin with.

If you're of the opinion that management plays their politics game while ICs run the show, then I pity you for the work environment you're in. That isn't how it's supposed to work, and there are better places.

[9rx]

> Teams definitely do need leaders

Do they? The entire Agile Manifesto was written about how teams don't need leaders. That doesn't automatically make it valid, of course, but industry was all over it for a time. An entire industry got it wrong? Yes, it wasn't long before "leaders" afraid of losing their job bastardized it into some kind of management framework with nonsense like Scrum[1], granted, but industry support for it also died in that moment. What does that tell you?

> If leaders weren't needed in some capacity, they wouldn't exist.

False premise. The world is full of all kinds of things that exist but aren't needed.

> If you're of the opinion that management plays their politics game while ICs run the show, then I pity you for the work environment you're in.

I'm not really sure what this means. It doesn't seem to have any connection to the original discussion. Where are you going with this?

> That isn't how it's supposed to work, and there are better places.

How is what supposed to work?

--

[1] To be fair, Scrum considers itself "training wheels" for Agile. It clearly indicates it is something to use for a short period of time to wean yourself off malformed leadership practices as you transition into Agile. If used as written, it may be a useful tool. But when have you ever seen that happen in practice? In reality, when you find it in use, "leadership" has enforced its use — often modified to their arbitrary fancy — and never let go like it suggests you need to.

[watwut]

> People in leadership usually get there because they value time and efficiency

Equally if not way more often they are there, because they like to control things or organize things or like having power or see it as career setup. Or they like working with people.

Time and efficiency is not something you get on these positions.

[theshrike79]

I had a deal with one engineer on my team, when I used to do that boss crap.

Their body had to be present in the meeting, but they could keep working on their laptop.

This was because WAAAY too much of the silent information about the company products was on their mind and it was by far the fastest way to get it out.

I could just quickly refer to them for 15 seconds to clarify how something actually worked and keep on with the meeting.

...also they once got bored during a sales meeting and coded a full-ass PoC about what the customer was asking during the meeting. That kind of person.

[pjc50]

The polite way to do this is on receiving the invite, ask for clarification of what's expected from you at the meeting. Combine that with pointing the inviter at someone else who is also invited and you can politely express that your presence is not necessary.

Or just counter-schedule a meeting in the same slot.

[watwut]

I do it regularly. But, I am not rude about it, I do not insult the meeting nor its organizer. I used the sentence "Hi, am I necessary for the X meeting?" Followed by quick reason. Quick reason would be:

- "I have many meetings already and worry about not meeting deadline".

- "I do not have strong opinions either way, so am fine getting just outcome".

- "I do not have knowledge to be useful".

- "It seems like I wont be useful".

Basically, you can guess these from the topic alone. Most of the time, the response is something like "of course no problem" sometimes followed by short explanation why I was called in. Occasionally they say they indeed want me there.

[indoordin0saur]

Once I have enough political capital within a company I'll just stop showing up to the ones that are a waste of time for me. If someone asks I'll let them know that it's not useful for me.

[yencabulator]

The best thing one can have in a career is lack of fear of being fired.

[indoordin0saur]

True. This lack of fear comes from (1) being competent and productive, (2) being the expert in critical systems; the company would have a bad time if I was gone, (3) being hard to replace (it recently took us 6 months to find a second member of my team), (4) having good options available in the job market if I were to be fired.

[windward]

Like you I couldn't imagine saying this to my boss. On the other hand, I could imagine saying it at some meetings at a previous employer, much larger, with many more inter-departmental box-ticking meetings.

Meeting culture is something that varies hugely between companies and industries and sectors. IMO that means that advice like this has limited utility unless you're aware of the differences. There are a few topics like this.

If the person you'd be telling it to is your boss, you probably don't have much sway to change the culture beyond regular feedback loops.

[holowoodman]

Our company "good vibes" team, after some anonymous suggestions, managed to make this a company-wide policy. Every meeting room has a poster with rules to that effect, and managers are supposedly judged by adherence to those rules.

Not 100%, but seems to work.

[Tempest1981]

I've definitely done that, and afterwards my boss was approving. (I just leave, no need to say why at the time.)

But we've worked together for several years, so he trusts my judgment.

[ianmcgowan]

This is where defensively blocking off your calendar comes in!

[9rx]

I'll silently drop off. No need to interrupt the meeting for anyone who is finding value in it.

[alex_duf]

I've done that both in France and the UK. Nothing happen and I got some time back