io9.com: At least one study has demonstrated the fact that talking can take away a group's ability to make a good decision — not to mention a swift decision. It involved pairs of people having to reach a decision, sometimes through brief written messages, and sometimes through verbal and written communication.
8 comments:
Is this for real? No wonder nothing gets established at our Arcade meetings! We have currently only had two, but the first time almost nothing got done and the second time almost broke down what we needed. Through the various groups I've been involved with, I guess I can kinda see this as a basic truth. A lot of times, I usually just send an email out to everyone involved with the information I need them to have and just compile their answers upon return of the emails. I kinda never want to have a meeting ever again, and much less with really strong willed people that are stuck in their ways.
I think my mind may have just exploded. Every group project that has been assigned since I have been at this school has started with a meeting. We have had to discuss what we planned to do to and how we were going to do it. Most of these meetings have gotten us close to nowhere are left people in disagreements. It is so much easier to just write to people, for me if I had the chance to talk to people I would go on with more ideas and thoughts. When I have to write it down I am most definitely going to keep it short and simple. I do not want to write tat much and no one wants to read a novel for a design project.
I don't entirely agree with this article. It seems they've only accounted for one part of the issue. I agree that meetings are slow. Having every in the room leads to lots of talking and ultimately slow decisions. However, I strongly disagree that it doesn't reach a good decision. Although email can allow quieter people to get their piece said, it also causes less of the interpersonal connection that I think helps everyone get heard.
Eh, meetings only suck if your group sucks at having effective meetings. Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of instances where keeping discussion brief and to the point is more advantageous. However, I believe that certain conversations and debates must be had, most likely in the form of a meeting. Competing ideas must be synthesized and information must be shared. Sometimes, meetings are the best way to get this kind of stuff across.
I am on the fence about this article. I don't think that the current format for project meetings is conducive to getting things, however sending messages has proven to be just as complicated. I do think that sharing ideas without being in the physical presence of the rest of your team does give you more room to process your ideas and to respond to critique without getting caught up in the moment. Maybe we need to find a meeting format that allows for more processing time, but doesn't diminish the ability to brainstorm and collaborate on proposed ideas.
Do we really use meetings to get stuff done though? Getting decisions made: yes. Disseminating information: yes. But a meeting to get actions accomplished is not a meeting but a work call. The test they describe is not a "meeting-worthy" situation though, because it has a definite right and wrong answer.
I feel compelled to defend the meeting, especially in situations such as the arcade project. How else are we supposed to exchange ideas? Dearly though I love email, we can't really have brainstorming sessions through reading and writing on a screen. Sometimes I worry that our quest for efficiency and a "correct" answer leads to an unnecessary bashing of systems that are flawed, but important.
I’m a little confused by this article. I’ve never considered meetings to be an event in which decisions were made and things were done. I always consider meetings to be an event in which everybody checks in on what they are doing, what they have done, and what they still need.
This article seems to be anti-discussion based meetings. Especially in our industry, the production meeting is an important part of the production process. I’m not sure that this articles opinion really has a place in the entertainment industry.
I very much disagree with a lot of this article. I acknowledge that sometimes when people meet in person their egos take over and they care more about supporting their own opinion than actually reaching a conclusion. However, the article fails to address time. For us in the entertainment industry, as well as many others time is of the essence and meetings are the most effective way to reach a group conclusion quickly then get back to work. Also in this article, the two people were evenly matched. My personal opinion is that the most successful meetings are those with some sort of management that can just make a decision, if the need arises.
Post a Comment