Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jacques_chester 4738 days ago
It's fascinating how much of this is a reinvention of classic meeting technique.

"Define the objective of the meeting" --> Have an agenda.

"Identify who is driving" --> Have a Chairman (Chairwoman, Chairperson, Facilitator, whatever).

"Assign someone to take notes" --> Have a Secretary.

"Summarize key action items, deliverables and points of accountability" --> Publish minutes of the meeting.

I used to be involved in student politics. Mastery of meeting procedure is a tactical weapon in that sphere, but even when they are being abused, Rules of Order are effective at keeping ... order.

Having an agenda and attentive chairmanship go together. The role of the Chair is to ensure that the meeting proceeds according to the rules and doesn't stray from the agenda. This often means not contributing.

A key reason to stick to the agenda no matter what is given in Tom DeMarco's amusing novel The Deadline. If you don't stick to the agenda but still make binding decisions, then everyone has to attend every meeting to guard against the possibility that a decision affecting them will be made in their absence.

If there is an ironclad guarantee that agenda will be followed come hell or high water, then only folk who are required at a meeting will show up. That saves a lot of time and breeds a lot of confidence.

To learn more, you can join Toastmasters or The Penguin Club. You might also join a political party, a professional society, a union, community groups like Rotary, Apex, Lions and so on. There are many good books on meeting procedure, they're worth reading to get the basics down.

This guide is brief, but gives you a taste of classical meeting technique works, in the context of incorporated associations:

http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/associationsguide/Content/06_M...

3 comments

Thanks for highlighting the reasons for "stick to the agenda no matter what". A good reason that I was not really aware of.

These are the little details I learn from HN every day. Adds up over time. :)

It was eye-opening for me too. The relevant chapter in the novel is great.

Up until then I'd been taught to keep meetings on agenda for a different reason: it keeps things moving along at a decent clip. Without an agenda, most discussions wander off into irrelevancies. With an agenda the Chair can say "that's not what we're discussing, we're discussing X which is in the agenda. Consider submitting it for the next meeting". Bam, you've just saved 20 minutes of chatter.

The first meeting I ever chaired lasted for about 4 or 5 hours. It was, in practice, a social get together. The minutes reflected that we decided basically nothing. By the end of my time in a chairman role I aimed for all meetings to conclude in 45 minutes and I was a maniac about sticking to the agenda. And you know what? It worked. It really worked.

> If there is an ironclad guarantee that agenda will be followed come hell or high water, then only folk who are required at a meeting will show up.

That's a really interesting technique I might try one of these days.

I'm actually of the opinion that I want people to attend the meetings anyways since they might be informed even if they don't participate.

Right. But this can usually be achieved with agenda and well-written minutes. People who are good at the secretarial role are force multipliers for meetings.
I'd be tempted to add

* Set an ironclad time limit, no longer than 1 hour.

Or make it uncomfortable. Meetings of Queen Elizabeth with the UK's Privy Council are conducted standing up to prevent them from running too long, a custom that began in 1861. (During that dark time before the agile manifesto was signed and history was rebooted).

It takes advantage of a simple exploit: if the Monarch is standing, nobody present may sit down, unless they are bodily incapable of standing. Queen Victoria didn't like long meetings, so she stood up to ensure they would be brief.

Yes stand-up meetings are a great idea.
Surprisingly effective. :)