dagToday's law and policy post on how the contest between platforms is an example of a contest often seen
https://davidallengreen.com/2022/11/hierarchies-vs-networks-in-the-age-of-musk-and-mastodon/
Black Fen@davidallengreen On a related note, I don't know how well it applies to other disciplines, but one of my mantras from a lot of experience working as a product development engineer is "More than 6 people in a meeting is an announcement, not a discussion".
That's based on meetings lasting 30 to 60 minutes. In that amount of time it seems up to 6 people can make meaningful contributions, but if you have any more than that there's a high probability at least one person won't say anything.
Owen Blacker@blackfen @davidallengreen From chairing ED&I Community meetings in my dayjob, we certainly have productive meetings with more people, of which a varying subset speak in each meeting, but I like your framing
Jared 🇦🇺🏳️🌈⚧️👽@blackfen @davidallengreen there should be a clock on the wall that counts "This meeting has cost..."
hicksy2@jared @blackfen @davidallengreen Careful with that. You can end up designing or implementing something that works for you, but no-one else with an anti-meeting approach. Better to have a good chair who stops repetition, parks tricky items and makes sure everyone contributes.
Kate W@hicksy2 @jared @blackfen @davidallengreen When I worked for a Students' Union, a common chairing technique was to go round the table and ask each person if they had anything to add. Helped make space for quieter people to contribute, if they hadn't during the group discussion.
@kateweb @jared @blackfen @davidallengreen You've got to actively winkle contributions put of some people, just be careful you're not upsetting them putting them on the spot.
@hicksy2 @jared @blackfen @davidallengreen Absolutely; only works done gently and in an open culture that guess everyone's contribution.
Betsy Bee@blackfen @davidallengreen Very true.
Arieh Kovler@blackfen @davidallengreen Any meeting of more than 6 people is a *performance* and should be appropriately scripted beforehand. If a meeting bigger than that is making decisions that weren't scripted you're in trouble.
@ariehkovler @davidallengreen That sounds about right to me!
Rob@blackfen @davidallengreen although I definitely know fellow Product Managers that have made much smaller meetings into announcements too 🙃
Treasa_Anseo@blackfen @davidallengreen Or a meeting that should have been an email
@Treasa_Anseo I agree, but I've also experienced interminable email ping pong that could have been a 2 minute verbal discussion. I guess the lesson is choose an appropriate format for the communication you're hoping to achieve!
BonneMillie@blackfen @davidallengreen 6 feels a bit much still. I was discussing this with a colleague last week as we were arranging “break out rooms” on Zoom, and we decided (based on 2 years of Zoom experiences!) more than 4 people doesn’t work. Shy people may (will, I’ve watched it!) still end up not contributing in a room of 4, but at least they were given space to do so.
@PlanetMillie You may well be correct that the maximum number of people is smaller when at least some are participating virtually.
Chandima Dutton@blackfen @davidallengreen it’s my experience too. 5-6 people are a small enough group to be able to pay close attention to each other, and a large enough group to ensure there is a diversity of views that can be expressed in the time. And, if people are curious about each other and respectful of the differences, that then enables creativity and effective problem solving.
Chris L@blackfen @davidallengreen This neatly summarises a problem I have with meetings that I haven't managed to put words on until now.
Thomas Crossley@blackfen @davidallengreen I was going to reply that the person who could make the most valuable contribution is also less likely to make it the larger the meeting. And then realized I was probably stealing from the chapter on meetings in the book The Peter Principle - Why Things Always Go Wrong, which states something like 'In any meeting the most time will be spent discussing the least important topic on the agenda'. I have found this to be true.
Dave Hounslow@blackfen @davidallengreen more than 6 is a crowd, less than 2 is a silo
Roomey@blackfen @davidallengreen Having sat through many meetings, I find there tends to be a few different people talking and many listening. Not a discussion but generally not a pre ordained decision either.
I guess it allows context sharing. Closer to a debate
I guess it allows context sharing. Closer to a debate
Richard Tennant@blackfen @davidallengreen My old Ops Director applied the pizza principle: if there are few enough of you to share a pizza, then it’s a productive meeting size.
Ingrid Murray@blackfen And that person will be me
simon gray@blackfen @davidallengreen We have the notion of ‘this is (or that was) an expensive meeting’ for meetings containing a large number of people not all of whom’s presence added value to either the meeting or their own work. At least in the modern era of Teams/Zoom it’s possible to have silent participants who can be getting on with something else at the same time.
Equiton Press@blackfen I might argue for an even smaller number such as 4 as the limit for discussions. Beyond that I find it difficult to balance the different 'voices'.
@Equiton Interestingly someone else suggested that same number in the replies here. I don't know if it's relevant, but they were referring specifically to meetings conducted virtually. Also I think the maximum number might depend on what sector the attendees work in.
SinbadExcess@blackfen @davidallengreen or as I wud do, start disrupting it coz I’m bored (adhd) 🥱