Scan barcode
A review by syllabus_of_errors
Death by Meeting: A Leadership Fable by Patrick Lencioni, Patrick Lencioni, Jack Arthur
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.