Meetings are Toxic (opens in new tab)

Groundbreaking post 37signals has right here. Switching styles away from inflammatory trying to generate some traffic?

Meetings aren't the problem, in my opinion. People who don't know how to properly run meetings are.

I spent some time in the military, and one of the best skills that experience ever taught me was how to properly prepare for and run a meeting.

Some people prepare too much for meetings with useless props/aids that aren't required, some people allow the attendees of the meeting to derail the subject uselessly, and so on and so on.

I'm a consultant in a large game company right now, and there are too many "emails instead of meetings" types. It's amazing how a quick 10 minute discussion at someone's desk can replace a solid day of useless and confusing email "discussions".

Meetings and email threads are simply tools to get the job done, and as with everything, it's a matter of picking the right tool for the job at hand.

"Every minute you avoid spending in a meeting is a minute you can get real work done instead."

I'm probably being a bit too nitpicky but this statement stuck out to me. Two sentences before that the author tells you to do x instead of having a meeting, so you're not going to get every minute back by simply not having meetings. There's no need to exaggerate like that.

Although I do agree meetings are time sinks, and are overused.

Meetings can most definitely be a huge time-waster, but not always. Sometimes a few minutes of face-to-face will resolve issues faster than an extended email/im/campfire exchange.

They're usually about words and abstract concepts, not real things (like a piece of code or some interface design)

They have got to be trolling.

In short, this is typical linkbait backed by the faintest smell of truth.

"The greatest myth that exists about meetings is that they are inherently bad." -- Patrick Lencioni in "Death by Meeting"

The real problem is not meetings themselves, but that most meetings are run ineffectively. Contrary to what one might expect based on the title, "Death by Meeting" recommends having more meetings, but gives guidelines on how to run them effectively.

Meetings are necessary to get everyone on the same page. Short term it is difficult to see the benefits of meetings, but long-term success is only achievable if everyone is cohesively chasing the same goal.

I completely agree that meetings need to have a concrete agenda and should not allow anyone to monopolize air time. But they are important.

"Never have a meeting without a clear agenda."

This is the only one that I agree with.

I hate meetings. But I have to admit that they serve a purpose: Getting people to spend some time thinking about a problem and working on it collectively.

When I send out an email, I get very few responses until I start poking people. And then I get just enough to get me to go away.

When a meeting is called, people are forced to be attentive and actually contribute because their boss is in the room. (And yes, their boss was CC'd on the emails above.)

For some things, meetings are the only way to progress them. For others, email works just fine. The key is to figure out which are which and act appropriately.

A good set of guidelines on how to run meetings effectively:

http://artofmanliness.com/2009/11/17/how-to-run-a-meeting/

(Not a joke, despite the whimsical domain name)