
How to Run a Meeting Like Google - Flemlord
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2006/sb20060927_259688.htm
======
ShabbyDoo
In the book Jack Welch wrote after leaving GE, he noted that the executive
staff would often meet to "wallow" (his term, like pigs in mud) about
difficult decisions. They didn't have some formal, "actionable" (my quotes
because I don't like the word) agenda. Their goal was to collectively think
through the problem and make sure they understood it well before making a
multi-billion dollar decision. This is the opposite of the meeting style
described in the article.

There are times and places for highly-structured, decision-oriented meetings,
but I often get the most value out of the least structured ones. Let's say
marketing has a vague idea for Feature X -- "Make the homepage skinnable."
What's it mean? What are everybody's goals? How muck work is involved in
different variations of the idea? There's no way to seek truth though a pre-
arranged agenda and a linear discussion with a timer. An outsider might regard
such a meeting as chaos, but the change in collective understanding is usually
immense.

Why are Americans so obsessed about structure, time, and faux efficiency? I'm
all for getting stuff done when the definition of "done" is inclusive of
everything important. However, making arbitrary decisions quickly so one can
pat himself on the back for his efficiency is hardly an efficient path to just
about anyone's definition of "done".

~~~
mikepurvis
I totally agree. The issue, though, is this—

 _What's it mean? What are everybody's goals?_

You still need a strong leader (whether formal or not) to actually ask these
questions, maintain the right level of depth, and stay off irrelevant
tangents.

------
johnnybgoode
Headline should be "How to Run a Meeting Like Marissa Mayer"

I've heard that she is hated within the company for things like this. Maybe
that's a minority view, but the article is still way too positive overall.

~~~
numberplate
As someone who has been in meetings with Marissa I'd say that the reason she
is ... not universally loved within Google (to put it mildly), is the fact
that she isn't a particularly nice person or good leader.

She might see herself as rational and efficient, but to a lot of people she
comes across as rude, insecure, and worst of all: horribly inconsistent.

She practices a sort of "off with their heads" style of management and loves
the sound of her own voice. She will often interrupt people before they have
had the chance to communicate even a fraction of what they have prepared for
meetings, often spewing forth cascades of unpleasantness as she argues against
what she thinks the messenger intends to say.

Very often the upshot of a meeting is that people are more confused as to what
her intentions are than they were before the meeting.

She often sends teams in one direction, and then later, yells at them for
going in that direction and sends them in a new direction. She seems to have
very weak memory for what decisions she has made in the past. People rarely
(if ever?) point this out to Marissa.

She also seems to be quite terrible at managing her staff. She is unable to
delegate meaningfully, and if something is OK'ed by one of her reportees you
essentially have nothing: there is a complete disconnect so you need to get it
from Marissa directly. You also need to verify with her frequently to make
sure that you catch it when she suddenly changes her mind.

Due to her foul mood, people rarely, if ever, speak up and tell her when she
is being an ass or that she is contradicting herself. Again. The reason is
that Marissa will have people people removed if they annoy her. I've seen this
happen. I've seen people get thrown off projects just for saying something
that annoyed the cupcake princess in a meeting.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
>She is unable to delegate meaningfully

That she supposedly schedules 70+ meetings/week is sufficient evidence of
this. I suppose this is one definition of a "flat" organization though.

~~~
numberplate
It would also account for the fact that she has no memory of past decisions
and frequently gets upset about teams doing what she said in the last meeting.
And as mentioned: nobody has the balls to stand up to her and point this out
since she has a habit of screwing over people's careers for no other reason
than her being annoyed by them.

------
gfodor
Google's obsession with data-driven decision making results in successful
products that have no soul.

~~~
gfodor
Why the downvote? Disagreement? Do you think GMail actually has soul?

~~~
pgbovine
what are some examples of software products with soul?

~~~
gloob
Unix?

~~~
houseabsolute
A demon's soul, maybe.

------
elblanco
Maybe somebody should just forward this thread to her mailbox so she knows
that people have problems with her.

------
alxp
The writer misused the word "actionable" and my eyes rolled back so far in my
head I couldn't finish reading it.

~~~
balding_n_tired
Good for you, but your muscles must get a lot of work that way.

