Meetings may be toxic, but calendars are the superfund sites that allow that toxicity to thrive. All calendars suck. And they all suck in the same way. Calendars are a record of interruptions. And quite often they’re a battlefield over who owns whose time.
In my experience, most people don’t schedule their work. They schedule the interruptions that prevent their work from happening. In the case of a business like ours, what clients pay us to make and do happens in the cracks between meetings, or worse, after business hours.
I’ve yet to see a résumé—and I hope I never do— that lists “attends meetings well” as a skill. Yet attending meetings ends up being a key component of many jobs. And it’s stupid.
The problem here is two-fold. Part of it is software. Part of it is human behavior. You can’t fix the software without adjusting the human behavior. And there is no point to addressing the human behavior if the software won’t support it.
Let’s start with the premise that you have a 40 hour week. (If you just started crying you need a new job.) That’s 40 hours of time to do your job. Now look at your calendar. If your job is to spend a very large part of those 40 hours in meetings scheduled for you by other people then you’re fine. If your job is to produce things such as code, comps, analyses, flow documents, etc., then why isn’t the time to do THAT on your calendar?
People rarely schedule working time. And when they do it’s viewed as second-tier time. It’s interruptible. Meetings trump working time. Why? And why so often are the same people who assign deadlines the same ones reassigning all of your time? Crazymaking. They should be securing work time for you and protecting it fiercely.
Why are you letting other people put things on your calendar? The idea of a calendar as a public fire hydrant for colleagues to mark is ludicrous. The time displayed on your calendar belongs to you, not to them. It’s been allocated to you to complete tasks. Why are you taking time away from your coding project to go to a meeting that someone you barely know added you to without asking and without the decency to have submitted an agenda?
Start saying no.
Why do you feel like others have more of a right to your time than you do? The time is yours.
The problem with calendars is that they are additive rather than subtractive. They approach your time as something to add to rather than subtract from. Adding a meeting is innocuous. You’re acting on a calendar. A calendar isn’t a person. It isn’t even a thing. It’s an abstraction. But subtracting an hour from the life of another human being isn’t to be taken lightly. It’s almost violent. It’s certainly invasive. Shared calendars are vessels you fill by taking things away from other people.
“I’m adding a meeting” should really be “I’m subtracting an hour from your life.”
We need a goal-oriented calendar, but first we need to understand why a goal-oriented calendar is necessary.
Imagine that rather than scheduling individual points in time, such as meetings, you were instead scheduling a goal. With all its dependencies with it. A simplified model might look like this:
By handling events as something we work towards and need time to produce things for, rather than as disruptive singularities, and by respecting that work time as something associated with a goal we achieve a calendar that shows both those meetings, now less inane, and the time time necessary to do the work that will make those meetings successful.
Most of these things currently exist. Across multiple applications. And badly. Now it’s time to fix that.
| 
26 comments so far. Add yours below.
Trav says:
Excellent article, I can't count how many times I've thought this very thing. Let's not forget that we need to factor in professional development time too- if not, the ninja-level JS skills of today become the "status bar text" of yesterday.
October 5, 2010 12:32 PM
Sommar says:
I have a colleague and friend who accepts nearly all Outlook meeting requests (and we have a lot that are completely unnecessary). It gets added to his calendar that we all have to share. Then he simply doesn't attend the meeting. He doesn't "decline" the meeting request or respond with an excuse. He just doesn't go. If he is truly necessary for the meeting to happen someone will locate him. Otherwise he just lets the meeting happen without him.
October 5, 2010 12:42 PM
Tim says:
Fantastic, Mike- really good. I was reading a book recently titled The Design of Design that addressed this very issue of the way that how time is structured and used by different people within business, and specifically how designers, coders, developers, etc. and managers are often at odds with each other in the way that they work. One group needs large blocks of time to be effective and any interruption into that block of time can ruin half days or even whole days. The other group traditionally has had a job where about all they do is attend short meetings or check in with their staff in ways that are interruptive.
October 5, 2010 1:18 PM
Shannon Wagner says:
Thanks for the post - "calendaring" is definitely a sensitive topic for me nowadays.
I realized a few years ago that I would see my friends and relations just as frequently, and get just as much done at the office, even if I never planned more than, say, half a day in advance. But still, the world marches on with its calendars. Go figure.
October 5, 2010 2:29 PM
gaston says:
Bill the meetings by the hour, explain the client that meetings arent free and that delays the delivery date.
I should do what I preach...
October 6, 2010 7:54 AM
Ellen Beldner says:
Why don't you just block out working time in your schedule? That's what I do with mine. Spending the overhead to map decisionmaking dependencies in software is a lot of wasted time, and changing a process to require more overhead is not the way to viral adoption (which you'd need for your proposal to work).
Also, FWIW, Google had "No Meeting Thursdays" for people whose work required sustained concentration -- e.g. engineers, designers, etc. (And Google had this type of "just add meetings" corporate culture; Google Calendar was optimized for it in a way that many other calendaring systems aren't.)
October 6, 2010 1:07 PM
Stan Taylor says:
At one company where I worked, the entire team blocked out half the day as work time. No meetings could be booked in that time--not that management necessarily respected that, though we did have a scrum master to guard our work time for us and run interference where necessary.
October 6, 2010 3:18 PM
Lucas Thornton says:
I've been doing something very similar for quite some time. It is liberating. I'm using Google Calendar, not ideal but does the trick. Anyone know of any calendaring apps designed to support this type of time-blocking?
October 6, 2010 3:33 PM
Andrew Brodie says:
About the most truthful thing I have ever read. If you like this try the book REWORK by 37 signals, same message, accomplish work, meet goals.
October 6, 2010 3:47 PM
Alycia Edgar says:
I love this! I look at tasks as relating to differing parts of my business. 3 days are clients days where I book appointments with them and or work on client related tasks. Another day is business development and the other day is follow up/admin day. It works well as you can keep in the flow and complete parts of projects and then move onto the next part. If interested you can read more about it here: http://numbersarelife.com/2010/09/96-days-grow-business/
October 6, 2010 4:00 PM
privacydude says:
I think the bias of the types of places you've worked doesn't apply much to the rest of us.. I've worked in the most stodgy and bureaucratic of offices and still they always send me an invite to approve or decline, almost always with a description of what the meeting is about. I get a bit of a reputation as an asshole for declining meetings a lot, but that's because they implicitly assume you'll accept.
The only way a public calendar is used in any corporation I've ever worked for (Bank of America, IBM, etc.) is to see whether people are free when you're planning a meeting. And usually you've already spoken to the people you're going to invite, or at least corresponded by email.
Who assigns time the way you suggest? Noone that I have seen.
October 6, 2010 7:26 PM
David Ankers says:
I have tried to do this to a limited extent: always blocking Friday afternoon to finish off urgent items, plan next week's work etc., get home at a sensible time, but never to this extent. Your article has inspired me to have another go.
The thing that would REALLY help me - and I think others - is a "Do-When" list. There are zillions of to-do list programs out there which show what you have/want to do and when you want/need to complete it, some give a start date as well, but I have not yet found one which allows you to plan when you will do it (Pagico is the closest but that only goes two weeks ahead).
In the example above, imagine putting some of those blocks on your calendar; do they add up to 20? is there enough time before the check point with Bob & Erika? can you squeeze your other projects to make enough time? etc?
I wish I could code well enough to write my own app.
October 7, 2010 12:19 AM
Charlie says:
That was such a beautiful, beautiful article. I am really going to take some of the points you raise here up, in fact I have scheduled a meeting to talk about them (only joking!)
October 7, 2010 5:25 AM
ephduke says:
Can you guys or anyone suggest some resources to dig deeper in the to this topic, or more tactics for implementing the ideas?
October 7, 2010 7:27 AM
SimonF says:
@privacydude:
>> Who assigns time the way you suggest? Noone that I have seen.
I think that's exactly the point. Traditionally, I would only have the meeting with Bob and Erika on my calendar. Time toward the coding project would be considered my "default" activity, so it wouldn't be scheduled. I would then weigh meeting invitations against the importance and urgency of the coding project. Because it occurs in my head, that decision-making seems arbitrary to an outside observer.
I might accept Steven's Monday morning invitation to a meeting about the new furniture we're ordering. But Wednesday morning, I really need to finish a few things before my meeting with Bob and Erika, so I decline Susan's invitation to a budget meeting. Because I "snubbed her, but went to Steven's furniture meeting," she thinks I'm an a**hole.
Maybe I decline Steven's meeting so I can get started on the coding project right away, and so I have time to attend Susan's meeting on Wednesday. Now Steven thinks I'm an a**hole. He's trying to get desks and chairs designed for programmers. He would probably agree that his meeting is a lower priority than the coding project or Susan's budget, but he has no way of scheduling around items that are not on my calendar. And if he tries to reschedule, he will find that everyone else has invisible commitments, too.
I might decline all meeting invitations for that week. But if any other interruptions or breaks do occur, they appear to have been more important to me than either meeting. Steven starts popping into my office for an impromptu meeting whenever he hears me stop typing for more than a minute or so.
If, on the other hand, I schedule 3 chunks of time on the coding project as appointments on my calendar, my actual availability is more accurately depicted. Anyone looking at my public calendar would see that I am not available for meetings during those blocks of time.
If Steven takes the time to check availability before sending his meeting invite, he can be confident in scheduling around these blocks of time. Or maybe he can't find a time that will accomodate all of the programmers, but he knows that we're usually able to come to an agreement within our group. He invites Robin (who is between projects), and asks us to discuss among ourselves the two options being considered.
If Susan doesn't bother checking my availability, she may send a meeting invite that conflicts with an appointment I have set. If this happens, I am justified in declining due to my prior commitment. I may even point her to the public calendar, so she can see when I am available. She gets to decide how important my presence is at the meeting, and can either reschedule the meeting or negotiate with me to move one of my commitments. Depending on who Susan is, she may never even know whether the conflict was a commitment to myself, or a meeting with someone else.
This not only respects and preserves my time, but also respects others I have a commitment with. I'm able to make progress on the coding project in a consistent, predictable manner. Bob and Erika know that I will have made sufficient progress to meet with them for their input.
October 7, 2010 11:44 AM
Matthew Bellows says:
Hi Mike,
Are you saying that you guys are making a calendar app with this approach? We're taking a new approach to business email... maybe we can collaborate? Check out www.yesware.com and let me know what you think.
October 7, 2010 11:46 AM
Ashe Dryden says:
I would love to see a move to this kind of scheduling. I find that a lot of times I get invited to meetings that I am not even needed in.
I am a big proponent of single-task meetings. One item is set to be accomplished during the meeting and only the people who are absolutely necessary are invited. Our company is divided into two teams: development team and culture team. Most meetings only require a delegate from one or the other team, so we don't have to worry about all being in on a meeting.
October 7, 2010 1:18 PM
Magne Gisvold says:
our developer simply stays at home when he needs to get some "real business" done.
but yeah, the ability to evade meetings is essential. I try to avoid meetings without an agenda (!), and (full) staff meetings I tend to be absent from (if I have something urgent on my hand), supposing that a summary will be provided/that anything important will reach me.
another thing is that I tend to decline requests of joining meetings that i chair (even from management) if I think it's not productive. the worst thing I know is when someone says "maybe n.n. should join us". I'd hate to be n.n... I understand that from managements point of view it's probably (partly) an attempt to create an "egalitarian" culture. i'll give that effort a pass.
October 8, 2010 12:57 AM
mARK aDAMS says:
Yes, I'll buy it.
October 8, 2010 6:34 AM
Doug Cuthbertson says:
Hmmm, another intriguing blog I'll have to follow. :)
A goal-oriented calendar is an interesting idea, but it also seems like what you could get from project management software (like 37Signals' Basecamp or MS Project). I only have a little experience with MS Project and I haven't seen anyone include meetings in a work breakdown structure, but I don't see why they couldn't be included.
Have I missed the point or is this kind of software the wrong tool for what you're looking to do?
October 8, 2010 9:04 AM
Brad Alm says:
I love it when someone is able to put their finger on what really happens with our time! The "I'm subtracting an hour from your life" line really hit home. Thank You!
October 8, 2010 3:21 PM
Sioux Falls cars says:
What an amazing idea! I used to use an egg timer to make sure I devoted time to the task.
October 13, 2010 10:57 AM
Halden says:
In my experience, a big part of the problem is that people use calendaring software as a means of communication rather than as a means of confirmation. Sending a meeting notice to 10 people without first checking availability is all too common.
October 13, 2010 5:49 PM
Mike Watters says:
When you do have to have meetings, they should include only key personnel on the project. Had a supervisor once who dragged the entire team into every meeting. I guess having us there gave the supervisor more confidence. But it was a waste of our time, every time.
October 20, 2010 9:29 AM
Evelyn Stice says:
I do not work in design; a friend who does (and follows this blog) forwarded this to me. You have hit upon a topic near and dear to my heart, one which I think negatively impacts nearly all of us who spend our days sitting down.
If I were a manager—and I expect that I will be, some day—every one of my staff would be expected to watch the video "Meetings, Bloody Meetings." It's a bit long in the tooth, but the message still applies: there are specific things we can do to make meetings effective and not the giant time suck they currently are at most companies. Two of the biggest things we can fix: do not hold meetings that are unnecessary, and do not invite participants who do not need to be included.
I make my disdain for meetings known, and I make a regular habit of nicely asking the inviters to justify requiring my presence. It works.
October 27, 2010 6:31 AM
Chris says:
Check out the work that the ROWE crew are doing around the globe. Making the workplace about results, creating real accountability for objectives not building legions of workers outstanding at sitting in a meeting room and bobbing their heads.
February 16, 2011 6:19 PM