You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
douglasjsellers's review against another edition
4.0
I’m a sucker for this kind of book. All management books really only have two or three points to make. Most management books fill the rest of the book with anecdotes and repetition. I love these books that fill it with parable. They are just less annoying to read.
Death by meetings is a great example of this. The main point is that the biggest problem with most meetings is that they become a meeting stew of different topic levels (from very tactical to very strategic) and that they try to avoid conflict making them both boring and non productive. Both of these topics are explored in this parable style in a way that I found directly applicable to my day to day job.
Death by meetings is a great example of this. The main point is that the biggest problem with most meetings is that they become a meeting stew of different topic levels (from very tactical to very strategic) and that they try to avoid conflict making them both boring and non productive. Both of these topics are explored in this parable style in a way that I found directly applicable to my day to day job.
tygaribay's review against another edition
2.0
So, usually I kind of enjoy Patrick Lencioni's management fables, but this book is a clunker. The manufactured setting for the lessons is so contrived as to be distracting. Skip the book, read the last 20 pages which are a mildly useful summary.
lizselbst's review against another edition
1.0
Painfully outdated and 200 pages too long. Felt like being in a bad meeting about meetings.
syllabus_of_errors's review against another edition
4.0
BLUF: a key thesis of meeting lethargy that still has some solid insights, despite being 17 years old.
About a third through this narrative-driven business book, I realized that it was written in the early-2000s. Thinking through how the situation applied to my current work environment, I realized that one of his core meeting structure arguments is a central tenant of Agile Development: more meetings, but a more effective use of the time by staying rigid with the formats and expected participant behavior.
The references to “staff meetings” immediately conjured visions of the film Office Space, fitting for a book whose narrative revolves around a film student becoming an unlikely catalyst for change. Bill Lumburgh droning on about any topic that comes to mind to a captive audience is an experience that I can viscerally feel, but mercifully, one i haven’t experienced too much.
Having started in Corporate America in the Agile world, the meeting split felt natural, and gave me a newfound appreciation for my daily standups and sprint planning meetings. But the biggest takeaway has to be the need for conflict.
What is drama, but life with all the boring bits cut out? The radical departure poised here is that healthy conflict between competent leaders should not be avoided, but encouraged. That to engage actual problem solving means that consensus is actually bad. It’s good that smart people come prepared with research and experience, then commit to the decision.
The problem with this model is downward consensus and politicking. Sure, execs in a room might conflict then commit, but what about their teams? The ones planning and executing the work aren’t privy to the arguments for or against. Too often, what happens when the team believes their leader didn’t fight hard enough?
Politicking comes into play if the exec team doesn’t actually have trust. If a decisions isn’t made in good faith towards the end goal, and instead the actors are moving towards their own objectives, this model falls apart. Neither of these assumptions described in the narrative’s setup are valid at many companies, and can’t be easily waved off.
All in all, solid advice, which while not groundbreaking today, I can see in the approaches taken by my current executive leadership. If nothing else, it gives me insight to the kinds of management trends in vogue when my C-Suite were my age, and will help me frame my work for them.
—
Listened to this one on a drive from Seattle to Portland on the way to a Quarterly Business Review. Hadn’t heard of it, but the author had another book on my To Read list and this one was available immediately from my library’s audiobook app without a reservation.
About a third through this narrative-driven business book, I realized that it was written in the early-2000s. Thinking through how the situation applied to my current work environment, I realized that one of his core meeting structure arguments is a central tenant of Agile Development: more meetings, but a more effective use of the time by staying rigid with the formats and expected participant behavior.
The references to “staff meetings” immediately conjured visions of the film Office Space, fitting for a book whose narrative revolves around a film student becoming an unlikely catalyst for change. Bill Lumburgh droning on about any topic that comes to mind to a captive audience is an experience that I can viscerally feel, but mercifully, one i haven’t experienced too much.
Having started in Corporate America in the Agile world, the meeting split felt natural, and gave me a newfound appreciation for my daily standups and sprint planning meetings. But the biggest takeaway has to be the need for conflict.
What is drama, but life with all the boring bits cut out? The radical departure poised here is that healthy conflict between competent leaders should not be avoided, but encouraged. That to engage actual problem solving means that consensus is actually bad. It’s good that smart people come prepared with research and experience, then commit to the decision.
The problem with this model is downward consensus and politicking. Sure, execs in a room might conflict then commit, but what about their teams? The ones planning and executing the work aren’t privy to the arguments for or against. Too often, what happens when the team believes their leader didn’t fight hard enough?
Politicking comes into play if the exec team doesn’t actually have trust. If a decisions isn’t made in good faith towards the end goal, and instead the actors are moving towards their own objectives, this model falls apart. Neither of these assumptions described in the narrative’s setup are valid at many companies, and can’t be easily waved off.
All in all, solid advice, which while not groundbreaking today, I can see in the approaches taken by my current executive leadership. If nothing else, it gives me insight to the kinds of management trends in vogue when my C-Suite were my age, and will help me frame my work for them.
—
Listened to this one on a drive from Seattle to Portland on the way to a Quarterly Business Review. Hadn’t heard of it, but the author had another book on my To Read list and this one was available immediately from my library’s audiobook app without a reservation.
sguillotte34's review against another edition
The writing is just so boring and terrible
bofmouais's review against another edition
3.0
This book is misleading. The title makes you think it will be all about how meetings are terrible, but it actually tries to convince you that meetings are not the worst and how meetings should be used as a tool rather than a routine activity.
It gave me a lot to talk about the next time my office had a meeting to talk about meetings.
It gave me a lot to talk about the next time my office had a meeting to talk about meetings.
takeshi_1's review against another edition
5.0
Another book by Patrick Lencioni caught my attention. I appreciate his straightforward writing style, which is packed with examples and gets right to the point.
Nowadays, managers and leaders are increasingly relying on their teams to achieve goals. Providing clear context, involving team members in decision-making, and unblocking obstacles along the way are all essential to team success. However, team meetings can often be a drag for participants. This book offers insights on how to make meetings more enjoyable and productive.
The hero was inspired by the cinema industry, where a 96-minute movie can cover the entire life of ten people from birth to death. If such a feat can be accomplished in a mere hour and a half, why can't we make one decision during a 30-minute meeting? The key to success is to make a clear and interesting beginning. The first ten minutes are crucial to capture the audience's attention, where the conflict or challenge is presented. The second key is the focus, where participants sometimes try to cover too many topics at once. Covering too much ground can make meetings less interesting, like trying to cram deep stories and fun situations into a single sitcom series.
So, begin with a clear and interesting intro and avoid covering too many topics. Let's get started!
Nowadays, managers and leaders are increasingly relying on their teams to achieve goals. Providing clear context, involving team members in decision-making, and unblocking obstacles along the way are all essential to team success. However, team meetings can often be a drag for participants. This book offers insights on how to make meetings more enjoyable and productive.
The hero was inspired by the cinema industry, where a 96-minute movie can cover the entire life of ten people from birth to death. If such a feat can be accomplished in a mere hour and a half, why can't we make one decision during a 30-minute meeting? The key to success is to make a clear and interesting beginning. The first ten minutes are crucial to capture the audience's attention, where the conflict or challenge is presented. The second key is the focus, where participants sometimes try to cover too many topics at once. Covering too much ground can make meetings less interesting, like trying to cram deep stories and fun situations into a single sitcom series.
So, begin with a clear and interesting intro and avoid covering too many topics. Let's get started!
craniumslows's review against another edition
3.0
If you are hosting or attending meetings that go nowhere and accomplish next to nothing then you should check this book out. When you do ask yourself do I have time for a 200 page read or 30? This is also my primary gripe about this book.
The entire message of the book is contained on pages 221 through 254. The story is good but not worth buying at full price. Check it out on half.com or half price books.
shombiswas's review against another edition
3.0
Good. Not as good as the previous 'Five Dysfunctions...', and a little tedious at times - but the lessons are accurate and helpful. Was required to write a summary of this for office - am printing it below:
Observations:
1. Some meetings are bad. Why?
a. Some meetings are bad because they lack proper context. They become a mélange of varying types of discussions with a wide-range of importance to the organization (with most being not-very-much).
2. Conflicts are a good thing.
a. This is true for every intelligent, intellectual pursuit. The only way that improvements can be brought about are by challenging the norm, challenging the status quo. Meetings, as in Yip, were bad because executives in the organization, while well-meaning, refused to indulge in healthy debate; thus what suffered was shared perspective, and thereby growth.
b. What to debate about? What should be the topics of conflict? This is probably an issue that the book did not tackle head-first. In my opinion, and I have seen it happen, it is possible for a state of debate-for-debate’s-sake to emerge, which leadership should be wary of. Conflict is welcome, it is GREAT, but is it the right conflict? Is the conflict well-meaning / purposeful? I have once been part of an organization which actively promoted debate (i.e. senior management favoured / promoted people who were seen as the alternative / contrarian voices), but knowing that debate is encouraged but not wanting to go the debate = conflict route, this led to heavy debate about less-important issues, and lip-service debates about the more important issues. A state of hyperactive inertia is still a state of inertia. Probably something that the book could have dealt a little more in depth about.
3. Grab the attention. Early.
a. This, I think, is a great lesson. It is ideal to bring the most important items to the table well and early. That is when the participants are eager, and creative. Also, I think an underlying point Lencioni wanted to make is that there is enough time to retrieve a situation, if the context is set early.
4. There is no one-size-fit-all meeting – and all different type of meetings have their purpose
a. Lencioni suggested the following:
i. Daily Check-In: Share daily schedules and activities - don't sit down, keep it administrative, don't cancel even when some can't attend
ii. Weekly Tactical: Review weekly activities & metrics & resolve tactical obstacles & issues - don't set agenda until after initial reporting, postpone (park) strategic discussions.
iii. Monthly Strategic (or Ad Hoc as required): Discuss, analyze, brainstorm, & decide on critical issues affecting LT success - limit to 1-2 topics, prepare & do research ahead of time, engage in constructive conflict.
iv. Quarterly Off-site Review: Review strategy, industry trends, competitive landscape, key personnel, team development - away from office, focus on work & limit social activities, don't over-plan or overburden the schedule.
b. I do believe there could be more / less as the company requires. There is no one-size fit-all company either. But the point is very well taken. Not all conflicts is the same. Not all requirement is the same. Not all meetings are the same.
c. Some similarities with Scrum methodology of software development could be noticed – however, I am not an expert in Scrum (far from it: I attended a 2-hour introduction to scrum, a couple of years ago). But some ideas are similar, for example- Daily checkpoint; extensive conversation (and conflict, not spelled out in detail) etc.
Observations:
1. Some meetings are bad. Why?
a. Some meetings are bad because they lack proper context. They become a mélange of varying types of discussions with a wide-range of importance to the organization (with most being not-very-much).
2. Conflicts are a good thing.
a. This is true for every intelligent, intellectual pursuit. The only way that improvements can be brought about are by challenging the norm, challenging the status quo. Meetings, as in Yip, were bad because executives in the organization, while well-meaning, refused to indulge in healthy debate; thus what suffered was shared perspective, and thereby growth.
b. What to debate about? What should be the topics of conflict? This is probably an issue that the book did not tackle head-first. In my opinion, and I have seen it happen, it is possible for a state of debate-for-debate’s-sake to emerge, which leadership should be wary of. Conflict is welcome, it is GREAT, but is it the right conflict? Is the conflict well-meaning / purposeful? I have once been part of an organization which actively promoted debate (i.e. senior management favoured / promoted people who were seen as the alternative / contrarian voices), but knowing that debate is encouraged but not wanting to go the debate = conflict route, this led to heavy debate about less-important issues, and lip-service debates about the more important issues. A state of hyperactive inertia is still a state of inertia. Probably something that the book could have dealt a little more in depth about.
3. Grab the attention. Early.
a. This, I think, is a great lesson. It is ideal to bring the most important items to the table well and early. That is when the participants are eager, and creative. Also, I think an underlying point Lencioni wanted to make is that there is enough time to retrieve a situation, if the context is set early.
4. There is no one-size-fit-all meeting – and all different type of meetings have their purpose
a. Lencioni suggested the following:
i. Daily Check-In: Share daily schedules and activities - don't sit down, keep it administrative, don't cancel even when some can't attend
ii. Weekly Tactical: Review weekly activities & metrics & resolve tactical obstacles & issues - don't set agenda until after initial reporting, postpone (park) strategic discussions.
iii. Monthly Strategic (or Ad Hoc as required): Discuss, analyze, brainstorm, & decide on critical issues affecting LT success - limit to 1-2 topics, prepare & do research ahead of time, engage in constructive conflict.
iv. Quarterly Off-site Review: Review strategy, industry trends, competitive landscape, key personnel, team development - away from office, focus on work & limit social activities, don't over-plan or overburden the schedule.
b. I do believe there could be more / less as the company requires. There is no one-size fit-all company either. But the point is very well taken. Not all conflicts is the same. Not all requirement is the same. Not all meetings are the same.
c. Some similarities with Scrum methodology of software development could be noticed – however, I am not an expert in Scrum (far from it: I attended a 2-hour introduction to scrum, a couple of years ago). But some ideas are similar, for example- Daily checkpoint; extensive conversation (and conflict, not spelled out in detail) etc.