You must log in or register to comment.
Fluent companyspeech
There’s one weekly meeting that I’m in where my only contribution is to notice when we’re out of stuff to discuss but no one is wrapping up. I unmute and ask, “Ok, so can we wrap?”
I don’t understand why six other people just sit there saying nothing without ending it. I’ve got other shit to do. Don’t they?
‘Do you really need me? I still have a lot on my desk and would like to get to work on it, if you don’t mind.’
Never did anyone have an issue with that, including my boss.
The beauty of this is its not using brainrot LinkedIn language
Depends also if they include you so they don’t make dumb decisions. If they are capable of doing stuff on their own great. If they are habitually doing shit without asking you even just a question (and make every little thing into a meeting which is about just managing their decision making) it’s kind of always mandatory just to be there to save them from themselves and from taking decisions away from you.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to say ‘hey can we just grab you for a moment’ instead of and either or hour long meeting making you sit through it just to get to you about something either mildly so unimportant you didnt need you or they destroy the project
do you need my presence here
I used to work at this company where like 3 guys took care of basically everything. All but one of them, let’s call him Rob, eventually left to better companies. About a month after that, my team had to deal with a pretty big issue and we were having trouble coming up with a solution so this idiot had the brilliant idea to page Rob. As if the poor guy hadn’t spent the last month doing the job of 3 people who were already doing the job of a 5 people each. Rob got online, said “Why did you page me?” and immediately left before getting a response. I liked Rob.
lol classic Rob!
Sounds like they are talking in buzzwords.
Corporate buzzwords are cargo cult behavior. Jargon and industry-specific terms can be helpful for accurately communicating precise or nuanced ideas, but generic buzzwords are just people who try to sound professional or smart by mimicking the people they’ve seen in those roles.
Just asking “what’s my role in the meeting” is a simple way to get to the point, and isn’t impolite or unprofessional.
Some higher ups can get pissy at slaves that correctly guess that their actual work is more important than listening to inane bullshit. I know, it shows that said higher ups are unprofessional, but meritocracy is a lie anyway.
Sure, but the overall intent holds true. Not just in professional settings, it’s important to have the skill to reframe a negative comment into a positive one.
This is probably what I would say:
It sounds like you’ve got everything you need for the meeting. Would it still make sense for me to attend?
If that’s the case, then I think I’d be more useful handling some other tasks in the meantime. Please keep me updated on the outcome of the meeting
Correct. If we stop using buzzwords, then we will have to start asking ourselves what we are actually doing here
I think we should circle back and close the loop on that one later…
I’m aligned with your perspective, and I appreciate the clarity you’ve brought to this facet of the conversation. From a tactical standpoint, I want to loop in the stakeholders to ensure they are also in sync with the continued usage of buzzwords.
If you run into any blockers, please circle back.
Cheers!
I will hunt you for sport.
A service to humanity, really
Meetings are the viable alternative to work. Meetings that you don’t need to contribute to are even better. Take a break. Catch some zees.
Someone after my own heart.
Problem is, that the work is still there after the meeting
So? Not your fault you had to go to a pointless meeting. Leave at the normal time.
Unemployed or self employed?
This is definitely a difference between people that believe the work they do is important and people just punching a clock.
I teach at a community college (salaried) and my partner works as staff in the same school (hourly). She works her ass off, but when she gets to the end of the day, she is done and leaves work at the office, so attending meetings is no big deal to her. Meanwhile, I’ve gotten involved enough in peripheral committee work that I regularly stay up working until 1AM because there are literally not enough hours in the day to get done what needs to get done. I could try to leave work at work, but I’d be hanging students and fellow instructors out to dry, so that’s not always an option.
I could try to leave work at work, but I’d be hanging students and fellow instructors out to dry, so that’s not always an option.
Not your problem that your college hasn’t decided to fund enough positions to get things done within the workday.
It’s not my fault, but it is definitely my problem if I’m in a position to help people and decide not to. Make no mistake, I raise holy hell while I’m doing it, but the lack of workers doesn’t lessen the amount of work that needs to get done. Maybe it’s just naivete, but I’m idealistic enough to believe that helping students is the most important thing I can do, so I only say yes to things that are directly helping students, faculty, and staff (admin and their busy work can fuck right off with their bloated salaries and support staff)
One thing I’ve learned is that sometimes you need to let the problems happen. You can raise hell and keep talking about how more hands are needed, but unless issues actually start coming up and affecting people, then no one is going to care/listen.
I had a job in the past that was vastly understaffed. I kept getting more and more, and working longer hours. I brought this up with management many times but nothing was happening. “Not in the budget to hire more” is what I kept getting.
When it got to be too much, I decided I would only work 40 hours, and whatever happens, happens. Our lives are too short to be wasted away at work.
So tasks started to take longer, and whenever something needed doing, it was added to the queue and prioritized appropriately. Sometimes that meant I couldn’t get to it in weeks. At first, I came under fire. “Why haven’t you done this yet??” But each time I explained my situation. “There’s not enough hands and I am doing the best I can with the resources given to me”. And guess what? Most people empathized and understood my predicament. So now I have an army of colleagues who understand the issue here, and now the issue gets more visibility with management as more people rally to my side.
A few months of this, and they decide to hire two more positions to help with the overload of work.
It’s a risky move for sure. They could just fire you and dig themselves into a deeper hole. But then if they do that, is that really the type of environment you’d want to work in anyway?
People are surprisingly understanding when you explain yourself. You don’t need to fix everything and everyone’s problems. Sometimes the best thing you can do is to let the problems happen and observe how others deal with it.
This is very true. The manager is also overworked and busy, and they hear complaints all the time from people. People are very different, some complain all the time for nothing, while others stay silent why their back is on fire. It takes a long time to get to know somebody, so you can confidently tell. But if issues start showing up, they know there is a real problem, and they can allocate resources to fix it.
The biggest part of the issue in state-run higher-ed is the glacial pace at which hiring happens vs. how fast the works shows up. My organization is legitimately trying to hire appropriately (I believe), but we can’t allocate resources until the students show up, and then it’s an 18 month turn around between filing a faculty hiring request and the person starting work due to the standard academic hiring cycle and state-mandated EEO requirements (and that’s assuming that admin approve the hiring request the first time you ask for it, which they do as often as they can). On the other hand, it only takes 2 weeks for people to resign and move on, so we’re losing people as fast as we can hire them. We could to try to hire faster, but it’s a tiny school with a tiny HR (so we’re capped at hiring about 4-5 faculty positions per year) and a small number of faculty (so it’s hard getting enough people to volunteer when you need to fill a hiring committee).
Honestly, I really like the organization and think admin are making good choices, but we legally can’t turn students away, so when more people enroll, there’s more work with the same number of workers for at least a year. It’s honestly a good problem to have, and they do a decent job at compensating me for my extra work, but I’d rather have more help and less OT as soon as we can manage it.
All that said, working in private industry or in an organization that doesn’t have as many restrictions, I would absolutely be saying “no” a lot more. As it is, when I say no, it’s my colleagues and the students that feel the repercussions, not admin, and I have a hard time being OK with that.
The phrase ‘act your wage’ springs to mind. I realised you probably care deeply about the students, but it sounds like you need to care a little bit more deeply about yourself and stop letting them exploit you. Understaffing is management’s problem, not yours.
The university is exploiting your idealism to get you to work without being paid enough. You aren’t “in a position to help people”, you are doing a job for an organization with revenues. They could allocate more revenue to accomplish this work without forcing you to work until 1 AM, but they have made the choice that the work is not worth paying for.
That being said, most good people will go the extra mile if they think it can make a difference, but I see too many who take full responsibility on themselves and “cover” for financially-motivated organizational decisions, which in turn encourages the people who make those decisions to cut even more.
See, now you’re talking hourly versus salary. That’s why if the meeting is bullshit, I peace out.
Are you paid by how much work you get done or by the hour?
paid by the hour, fired for not getting the work done
go to meetings to avoid other meetings
I go to meetings so I don’t have to work
I’m in a meeting right now. Yeah, I don’t have anything to contribute to it, so I’m browsing.
deleted by creator
I’m going to need to pull you into a meeting real quick so we can discuss this attitude.
It’s meetings all the way down. And if they make you watch training videos…
That’s how I look at it. You want to pay me to go to a meeting that could’ve been an email? Ok! Bet!
What if you enjoy your work and find value in it; and the meeting is pointless bullshit that just breaks your focus?
Do whatever your want, mate. Decline the meeting?
Such corpo bullshit, do it the Scandinavian way, I don’t think this meeting is for me, have a good meeting though. Done and done
Don’t you want to empower the business and yourself by attending the meetings here? Why complicate the process by excluding yourself from the conversation.
Even saying that made me feel sick.
Talk to your manager.
Shortly after I was hired, my manager told me I should feel free to decline any meeting that didn’t seem useful, or that if it was preventing me from getting “real” work done.
Or just ask the person organizing the meeting.
“I saw you added me to a meeting tomorrow. Can you provide a bit of context so I can come prepared?”
Fluent in corporate speech 101.
Seriously is there a class I can take, because it’s like I’m speaking an alternate language at work and no one there understands what I’m saying
You are asking the wrong dude here. I failed at corporate speech, never understood their art of assimilation. It is all about not offending anyone, overstepping, never throwing anyone under the bus, especially higher management, and yet dodging bullets coming your way. It is also the biggest waste of time, usually. Got to give the upper management, the glorified babysitters, something to do.
I honestly can’t agree with you more
Email recap never comes. Miss out on key decision points. Attend next meeting. Nothing is agreed just talk for the sake of talking. Objections disregarded. Side meeting happens without you. Key points agreed with management in your absence. You’re just a cog in a giant hamster wheel. Not even the hamster. Cry at night.
I think I’ve been “management” in this scenario… Not intentionally, I’ve just been on so many shit ass working groups where our meetings were just political grandstanding that I feel we had to “get work done” in the off hours.
“Other duties as assigned” of course. 🙄
Cry at night.
That would imply that I care. I wouldn’t recommend caring.
I’m here for the income, not the outcome. You want to pay me then disregard my advice? That’s cool. Check still clears.
“What is the purpose of this meeting and why do I need to be included” is a perfectly polite series of words to use. The wording matters far less than the tone of voice.
I vastly prefer clear and direct questions over the reply that sounds passive aggressive from the very beginning.
Yep, clear & direct is kindness.
I like to insist on basic standards: “Please provide an agenda that explains why we’re needed. Otherwise, I’ll have to turn down this meeting. Thanks.” and reply all. Often, others will agree the lack of written preparation is a problem & follow that lead.
If the agenda is simple & clear enough, I’ll just answer in writing so we can cancel the meeting.
I think you underestimate how thin the skin of the professional managerial class is. It’s not about the tone of voice it’s about the directness and how that’s facilitating “conflict”.
I do understand and it does not matter how you phrase it for those types of people. Pretending that it could have been said the ‘right’ way is a waste of time because, as you said, they consider even asking to be facilitating conflict.
There are also good managers out there, they just aren’t as memorable as the ones who make everything into drama. The good ones also tend to be driven to other jobs because of the jerk managers…
Don’t find that’s true at all. Direct language is much preferred to this bullshit.
I wouldn’t say “perfectly” polite, but it’s definitely not offensive.
The response in the OP definitely doesn’t need further tonal clarification, though. It’s tough for anyone to classify that response as hostile.
But we all know she’s not looking forward to reading the recap, and probably won’t.
I usually join the meeting and start asking a lots of questions and clarifications because I don’t know what the stuff is about. After that, the amount of useless meeting requests drops like a rock.
