My first real job was at a branch office of a large company, in a suburb that was not quite close enough to be in the same city as the head office. We had a regular quarterly meeting where we would be bused up to a hall near head office to listen to the CEO talk about... something. Sales targets, or the latest marketing campaigns; nothing that was relevant to my job. The only thing I learned from it was that I wasn't going to be learning anything else. You couldn't read a book, and the days of smart phones were a long way off; for the day or two beforehand I used to look for a tricky problem to chew on while I waited for it to end.
Some of my fellow employees would decline to go, which I thought was wrong of them. In hindsight, I think I had absorbed the lesson of years of education - that if the Powers That Be tell you to do something, and it is unpleasant or boring and not obviously useful, you should do it for the greater good. What greater good that is may not be immediately discernable (and occasionally there won't be one), but that's the way the odds lie.
As the years went by, I moved on to other companies where the equivalent all hands meeting was a lot closer and less time consuming - a walk downstairs or to another meeting room or even to dial in on phone (or listen to a replay). They still weren't useful to me, because the sort of things talked about at these meetings are almost always rah-rah enthusiasm for people whose jobs require it; it's never a thoughtful description of where the company strategy is going and what will be needed to accomplish it. But because the cost kept dropping, it stayed below my impatience level.
Then a few years ago the company I was working for introduced a new set of corporate principles. One of them was a thing along the lines of "acting in the company's best interests". The next big meeting that was called, I argued to my boss that I shouldn't go. Usually I needed a proper reason to do that - some urgent work, or another meeting that clashed, or a fortuitous vacation day. This time I argued that it would be better if I sat at my desk and worked, because that would be better for me (I would enjoy it more), better for the company (more work would get done) and better for everyone else (because there would be more oxygen in the room). I wasn't really serious and my boss told me to go anyway.
But afterwards I realized that although I had been arguing non-seriously, and using this "company's best interests" line to cover the fact that I personally had no interest in going, I was actually completely correct. That feeling that unpleasant things are there for a reason persisted, but in this case it really was in the company's best interest that I not attend. In the unlikely event that important information was to be imparted, it would be much more efficient for someone to come and tell me that one thing instead of making me sit through the rest.
My boss wanted me to go so it didn't look like his department was skiving off; but this sort of politics is a corporate inefficiency. Much better to design targeted meetings that would be specifically useful for each department. And really that "skiving off" feeling is just a case of everyone else thinking that unpleasant things must be useful.
It ties in with a lot of the literature on meetings - badly structured meetings are a great way to waste time; meetings should be designed to achieve their purpose in minimal time. Not turning up to such a meeting is the most sincere and direct feedback you can give that it is a waste of your time. If somebody notices, that's actually a good thing. If they come and ask you why, be prepared to explain directly and seriously. But the truth is, I can't think of one of those meetings where my absence would have been noticed. If I had my time over again, not attending any of them would not make a huge difference to my life, but it would be a 100% positive move. No tradeoffs whatsoever.
I guess a part of growing up is to realize which of the unpleasant things you are told to do are actually also useless, and act on the information...
Some of my fellow employees would decline to go, which I thought was wrong of them. In hindsight, I think I had absorbed the lesson of years of education - that if the Powers That Be tell you to do something, and it is unpleasant or boring and not obviously useful, you should do it for the greater good. What greater good that is may not be immediately discernable (and occasionally there won't be one), but that's the way the odds lie.
As the years went by, I moved on to other companies where the equivalent all hands meeting was a lot closer and less time consuming - a walk downstairs or to another meeting room or even to dial in on phone (or listen to a replay). They still weren't useful to me, because the sort of things talked about at these meetings are almost always rah-rah enthusiasm for people whose jobs require it; it's never a thoughtful description of where the company strategy is going and what will be needed to accomplish it. But because the cost kept dropping, it stayed below my impatience level.
Then a few years ago the company I was working for introduced a new set of corporate principles. One of them was a thing along the lines of "acting in the company's best interests". The next big meeting that was called, I argued to my boss that I shouldn't go. Usually I needed a proper reason to do that - some urgent work, or another meeting that clashed, or a fortuitous vacation day. This time I argued that it would be better if I sat at my desk and worked, because that would be better for me (I would enjoy it more), better for the company (more work would get done) and better for everyone else (because there would be more oxygen in the room). I wasn't really serious and my boss told me to go anyway.
But afterwards I realized that although I had been arguing non-seriously, and using this "company's best interests" line to cover the fact that I personally had no interest in going, I was actually completely correct. That feeling that unpleasant things are there for a reason persisted, but in this case it really was in the company's best interest that I not attend. In the unlikely event that important information was to be imparted, it would be much more efficient for someone to come and tell me that one thing instead of making me sit through the rest.
My boss wanted me to go so it didn't look like his department was skiving off; but this sort of politics is a corporate inefficiency. Much better to design targeted meetings that would be specifically useful for each department. And really that "skiving off" feeling is just a case of everyone else thinking that unpleasant things must be useful.
It ties in with a lot of the literature on meetings - badly structured meetings are a great way to waste time; meetings should be designed to achieve their purpose in minimal time. Not turning up to such a meeting is the most sincere and direct feedback you can give that it is a waste of your time. If somebody notices, that's actually a good thing. If they come and ask you why, be prepared to explain directly and seriously. But the truth is, I can't think of one of those meetings where my absence would have been noticed. If I had my time over again, not attending any of them would not make a huge difference to my life, but it would be a 100% positive move. No tradeoffs whatsoever.
I guess a part of growing up is to realize which of the unpleasant things you are told to do are actually also useless, and act on the information...
No comments:
Post a Comment