Sort By:
Nov 27, 2013
For the last 30 years before I retired, I didn't have to attend meetings that required a "decision" by anyone. The meetings were simply held for the purpose of informing employees of decisions made by others "before" the meeting. Before that, I worked for a different company that had meetings almost every day. And it got to a point where I printed out a poster that I posted in my cubicle. It read, "I spend so much time in meetings to discuss productivity that it precludes my ability to actually be productive."

My supervisor didn't like it (grin). But strangely, my boss did. Perhaps the meetings were my supervisor's idea - and perhaps the boss thought they were largely a waste of time (like I did). It didn't affect my job one way or the other, though.
Nov 25, 2013

What? and leave out the drunken Lemurs? Where would our real life sitcom of an economy be?

"Meetings should be restricted to specific competent contributors" that would leave PHB out of most meeting.
Nov 25, 2013
Judging from most comments, there are a lot of people out there that have been invited to meeting to which they should not have been invited. Meetings should be restricted to specific competent contributors, and let the rest of the masses tend to their jobs so as not to waste their valuable time.
Nov 24, 2013
PHB could have responded.

In that case the decision is to wait until more information is gathered.

Even if you do nothing, you still make a decision.
Nov 24, 2013
If the PHB had a minimal amount of competence, he would word-Judo Wally by going: "That's when you pause the project and assign people to research and fact-finding missions." Because, you know, that's what they actually do in non-dysfunctional organizations when they find out that they're not ready to commit to a course of action. And by non-dysfunctional, I mean 'at least at the level of middle-school team projects on track to get a B'.
Get the new Dilbert app!