
If you multitask, so will your team - endlessvoid94
https://davepaola.com/2018/01/25/if-you-multitask-during-meetings-your-team-will-too/
======
solatic
I largely agree with Dave, but it's important to think about what you wish the
alternative to be. If you ban laptops from meetings, what do you do when
people pull their phones out? Are you going to ban phones from meetings too?
What about daydreams, are you going to ban those too?

I remember being in a military course where we were getting very little sleep,
and naturally, there were no personal laptops and personal phones were banned.
If people started to nod off from the lack of sleep, they were called out and
asked to stand up to keep from falling asleep. Does _anybody_ really want to
work in that kind of environment where their attention is not invited, but
commanded?

Sure, it's important to make sure people are focused in meetings. But the way
to do that isn't just by setting a positive example, but by increasing the
focus of the meeting: reducing the number of invitees to only those who are
really necessary, having a scheduling framework for who is expected to talk
about what and for how long, and making sure that everybody in the meeting is
focused on producing, together, the documentation (e.g. a record of the
decision made) which is the product of that meeting. People are a lot less
likely to "slack off" in meetings if they feel like their presence is
necessary, appreciated, and productive.

~~~
ckastner
> Are you going to ban phones from meetings too?

My employer does this, and it's wonderful.

> Does anybody really want to work in that kind of environment where their
> attention is not invited, but commanded?

No, but nobody is making that argument.

~~~
alexion82
Bad habits go away slow and tend to come back fast.

------
minton
At my company we have weekly all-hands meetings. It lasts about an hour as ~15
people take turns giving updates. I’d say 95% of this meeting is just
verbalizing the kanban board. I’d say 80-90% of the meeting isn’t applicable
to most attendees except the owner who needs to be aware of everything.

I work remote so I attend via a slack call. I just mute my mic and keep
working until my department comes up. The on-site folks have to just sit at
the conference table.

~~~
philipodonnell
I'm not a software engineer, but isn't the idea that if everyone is sharing
their progress and challenges then others who had similar challenges on
previous projects can voice their suggestions?

It seems like "mute my mic and keep working until my department comes up" is
why the meetings seem so pointless, because you aren't listening to other
team's challenges and providing input?

Then again, I could be romanticizing these meetings and maybe at your company
unsolicited feedback is discouraged, so I don't want to project that onto you,
but I always though that was the _idea_ of the daily/weekly standup?

~~~
dagw
_isn 't the idea that if everyone is sharing their progress and challenges
then others who had similar challenges on previous projects can voice their
suggestions?_

At least in my experience, 90% of the time there aren't any 'useful'
challenges being presented. Mostly it's stuff like "Dave was sick last week so
we're a bit behind", "ticket #447 was much trickier than we expected, but
we've solved it now" or "We're still waiting for the client to send us the
updated data files". The actual technical challenges are almost always hashed
out in smaller ad hoc meetings among the relevant people. And even when a
'real' challenge does get aired it's often of such a specialized nature that
only 2-3 people have anything useful to add and it's much better for them to
have a separate meeting. So it's not that feedback is discouraged, it's that
there is hardly anything at the meeting to give constructive feedback on, and
any feedback I can give has already been given days ago in one those above
mentioned ad hoc meetings.

And in the very very rare event that someone has a challenge that is big
enough and generic enough that it's reasonable to assume that the whole team
will have something productive to add then that is a unique enough event that
it's worth scheduling a specific meeting just for that.

~~~
philipodonnell
Is your employer a software consulting company with teams working for
different clients? I could see how in that kind of meeting there would be very
little overlap in situational awareness of what each client's requirements
are. I was imaging a team working on different parts of the same large
product, where it may not be feasible to identify everyone who might be able
to provide constructive criticism ahead of time to get them into one of those
ad-hoc meetings.

Although, "that's the idea but it doesn't work in practice" is a fine answer,
too.

~~~
dgreensp
I was in 50-person all-hands meetings for a product at Google, and there
wasn’t the time or the context for anyone to give feedback on anything. At the
time I felt bad about my inability to pay attention — without my laptop out I
would barely have been able to stay in the room due to boredom — but the
meeting really was a poor format and a waste of people’s precious time,
attention, and energy, even at an hour a week.

------
mrmondo
While I agree if the meeting is important - often one can’t help but be
dragged to meetings that are run poorly.

Or situations where ones input is only valuable for a limited period of time
or around a certain subject matter.

If it’s an hour long meeting and management or project managers have organised
it - chances are I’ll have my laptop with me and I’ll be getting things done.

Of course I don’t turn up with my laptop open, not only would that be rude it
would also be presumptuous as to the quality of the meeting.

However, if the content of that meeting turns out to be fluff - I’ll be
working on being productive rather than watching slides of information that
could have been emailed.

~~~
Cthulhu_
In that last case, apply the law of two feet and just leave - and make it so
that anyone can do that if the meeting is just someone trying to be relevant
and showing off powerpoint-fu.

~~~
vog
Note that this works only well if the law of two feet has been established
prior to the meeting.

Otherwise, you should politely ask if you are still needed, wait for the "no",
and only then leave.

Among others, this avoids awkward situations where you are needed 5 minutes
later, and people have to wait for you to come back. In that case, your
behaviour would be (rightfully) perceived as passive-aggressive rather than
constructive.

~~~
jackpeterfletch
> Otherwise, you should politely ask if you are still needed, wait for the
> "no", and only then leave.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. So much passive aggression, frustration,
and abrasiveness injected into the work environment just because people don't
have the face to say "Hey guys, if theres nothing else for me/for me to add
here im going to drop off the call/go back to my desk."

I do this in about 30% of the meetings im in, probably twice in 5 years
someones said they'd actually like me for something they were going to lead
onto, and both times it was genuine.

Also, if you run a meeting, and you move onto something that doesnt need all
parties, you can just say "So we're going to move onto X, you guys might not
be so interested in so feel free to leave, unless of course you want to stay"

Never any hard feelings either way. It just business.

~~~
ryandrake
In a perfect world, yes, we should all be empowered to be grown-ups and excuse
ourselves from meetings that are useless. For run-of-the-mill useless meetings
it's probably good general advice. There's often more to it than whether you
have something to add to the meeting:

Sometimes the meeting has no clear agenda, and it's unknown whether you will
be needed to contribute. Since you're peripherally involved with the project
you're invited. The conversation may flow to some topic you need to weigh in
on. These are bad meetings of course but they happen.

Sometimes you're simply expected to be present at a meeting even though you
have nothing to contribute and there's nothing to take away that won't be in
the e-mailed meeting notes. Your silent attendance is what's important, not
whether you're engaged. In these cases, if you don't show up or heaven forbid,
walk out mid-way, it will be noticed and you might face disciplinary action.

Sometimes you're working for a company where face time is important, so you'll
have these meetings with the top brass and everyone tries to get an
invitation, yet they just sit there doing work with their laptops open
throughout. The goal is that the exec sees you and there's a chance he will
know your face/name at some point. It's silly but welcome to corporate
politics.

------
ckastner
> Someone calls a meeting and 5 people show up, each carrying a laptop

So ban laptops from meetings (aside from the person taking the minutes).

If a meeting requires my undivided attention, my laptop is going to be useless
anyway. If it does not require my undivided attention, I shouldn't be in that
meeting in the first place.

~~~
firepoet
Amen!

------
abrongersma
You hit the nail on the head with this one Dave. I'm dealing with this issue
with my new team.

My solution was to only bring my Ipad to meetings with me. It does a great job
of keeping me constrained to Evernote or jira. Using an Apple Pencil helps me
to keep my eyes on the presenter and not drift into multi-task land. If I set
a good example, hopefully my team will drop some of the bad habits.

------
paulus_magnus2
If you aren’t aligned with a human need, you’re just going to build a very
powerful system to address a very small — or perhaps nonexistent — problem

The problem is we're primarily aligning with the need of the shareholder, not
the customer / user. I can't think of a user who requested 24/7 surveillance
of their actions in order to receive more targeted ads.

~~~
emodendroket
If that's what you're working on your "user" is the advertiser.

------
mixmastamyk
The urge to multitask is proportional to the time taken by the meeting.
Keeping it concise should improve focus.

~~~
dsr_
The time is just a proxy for the importance you place on the meeting.

Simple examples:

In a one-on-one meeting, you're not going to open your laptop. You have to
hold up your end.

In a meeting in which you know you will be answering questions, you'll be
paying attention.

In a meeting which is about your work and decisions will be made, you pay
attention.

Then again, in a meeting which is about work you care about, you pay
attention.

Now the antitheses: if the meeting has many attendees, and you don't need to
answer questions, and decisions about your work aren't being made... why are
you even there? In fact, why are most people there? Is it a group bonding
activity? That's a legitimate thing, but it should be fairly infrequent.

~~~
jrs235
Or, in a meeting where one participant does all the talking... That's a
lecture and not a meeting. The content can be documented centrally and emailed
to everyone.

Sometimes that one participant crowds out the voices of others so no one
bothers to speak up... The leader of the meeting needs to be confident enough
to interrupt the person taking more than their fair share of time and then try
to get participation from others in the group. Being wholly ready to cut off
the aggressive personality that wants to constantly talk or repeat the same
thing(s) over and over.

~~~
emodendroket
Sometimes a lecture is good though. If you want to teach someone a new
concept, a lecture is probably better than just a document.

~~~
jrs235
So long as that's the meeting's agenda.

------
apo
Ironically, many of these managers who find it so difficult to focus on the
meetings they're supposed to be leading are are terrible at email as well.
Either they flat-out can't write, or mis-use the medium altogether for things
that should be handled face-to-face.

Communications technologies can make good people better, but they can also
amplify the incompetence of people who owe their current positions to the
Peter principle.

~~~
emodendroket
There's no irony there. Someone who multitasks gives both tasks short shrift.

------
guynamedloren
Great post Dave. Succinctly put. You're being generous with the email
example.. what's worse (and probably more common) is when it's unrelated to
work altogether: Instagram.

------
collyw
Seems to overlook how irrelevant some meetings are to some staff.

~~~
emodendroket
This article is geared toward leaders and points out that whipping out your
laptop signals you don't think the meeting is important.

~~~
brazzledazzle
Exactly. I hope my manager sees this article because I die a little inside
every time we have to explain something we've already discussed in that
meeting or previous ones because he got distracted by his laptop. Sometimes
the same thing multiple times in different meetings. Sometimes even in 1:1s
(tbf I'm remote so we use webcams).

If you can't pay attention to the answer to the question you just asked or the
meeting you scheduled ditch the laptop or close Slack and email. The tiny
things you do are picked up on by your staff.

------
534b44a
I'm currently reading this during a meeting. Hell of a coincidence!

------
notyourday
If people bring laptops to the meeting, then they do not need to be there.

If meeting organizer realizes that everyone brought laptops to the meeting,
the meeting organizer needs to realize that there was no point in the meeting.

------
redleggedfrog
If I saw someone with a laptop or their phone, or whatever, sitting in one my
meetings not paying full attention to the issue at hand, we'd be having a talk
and there'd be a piece of paper with some bad things written on it and you've
got a strike.

I asked you to the meeting cause I wanted your full metal capacity on the
issue at hand. If you don't want to pay attention you're probably at the wrong
job.

~~~
piva00
Or the meeting is not following the agenda.

Or people are overlapping discussions without coming to fruition.

Or the current part of the meeting is well known by the person and they are
bored.

There are a myriad of reasons why someone check their phones and laptops at
meetings. I don't like it, I don't bring my laptop if not strictly needed (I'm
presenting something or need to support the presenter), I don't pick my phone
up at any time because I feel that is disrespectful.

With that said, I'm dying of boredom in some meetings where the meeting-holder
does not have a clue on how to proceed with one, I constantly have to stop
people on the third or fourth level deep of an unrelated discussion.

I agree on you having a rule for "no phones, no laptops" but then you have the
burden on carrying those meetings optimally, if not you've failed and have no
right on asking others to behave if you haven't provided a good environment
for that.

Also: I don't like these kind of extreme measures on petty issues, meeting
distractions is a solvable problem without the need to shame people, I'd
definitely be on the wrong job if that is your stance.

~~~
redleggedfrog
Then you should say, "I'm wasting company time in this meeting." And I'd make
sure I'd gotten what I want from you and then let you go if I had it. And I'd
appreciate it.

At programmer rates today, it's more than a $1 a minute. That's not petty.

~~~
nsxwolf
That's a weird way to measure productivity. You're not really paying for
minutes.

