In the book Jack Welch wrote after leaving GE, he noted that the executive staff would often meet to "wallow" (his term, like pigs in mud) about difficult decisions. They didn't have some formal, "actionable" (my quotes because I don't like the word) agenda. Their goal was to collectively think through the problem and make sure they understood it well before making a multi-billion dollar decision. This is the opposite of the meeting style described in the article.<p>There are times and places for highly-structured, decision-oriented meetings, but I often get the most value out of the least structured ones. Let's say marketing has a vague idea for Feature X -- "Make the homepage skinnable." What's it mean? What are everybody's goals? How muck work is involved in different variations of the idea? There's no way to seek truth though a pre-arranged agenda and a linear discussion with a timer. An outsider might regard such a meeting as chaos, but the change in collective understanding is usually immense.<p>Why are Americans so obsessed about structure, time, and faux efficiency? I'm all for getting stuff done when the definition of "done" is inclusive of everything important. However, making arbitrary decisions quickly so one can pat himself on the back for his efficiency is hardly an efficient path to just about anyone's definition of "done".
Headline should be "How to Run a Meeting Like Marissa Mayer"<p>I've heard that she is hated within the company for things like this. Maybe that's a minority view, but the article is still way too positive overall.