These are good ideas, and I also believe that teams should regularly meet.
If there is nothing else to speak about and no game to be played, I recommend ending the meeting early. No need to spend the allocated time if you finish early.
These are good ideas, and I also believe that teams should regularly meet.
If there is nothing else to speak about and no game to be played, I recommend ending the meeting early. No need to spend the allocated time if you finish early.
That's a good point. I feel that a 30-minute length is better than 60 minutes for that purpose - it feels strange to end a 60 minute meeting after 15-20 (although I agree it should still happen if there is nothing to talk about).
I haven't heard such a complaint, but I feel that 1-hour meetings are intimidating. You know what they say, a task will fill up the time allocated to it - and I feel the same about meetings. When it's 30 minutes, you'll be much better at focusing on the important parts.
These are good ideas, and I also believe that teams should regularly meet.
If there is nothing else to speak about and no game to be played, I recommend ending the meeting early. No need to spend the allocated time if you finish early.
That's a good point. I feel that a 30-minute length is better than 60 minutes for that purpose - it feels strange to end a 60 minute meeting after 15-20 (although I agree it should still happen if there is nothing to talk about).
Interesting. I would have no problem with ending early if team trust is high. Could this be a cultural thing?
I guess it's mainly in my head :)
I haven't heard such a complaint, but I feel that 1-hour meetings are intimidating. You know what they say, a task will fill up the time allocated to it - and I feel the same about meetings. When it's 30 minutes, you'll be much better at focusing on the important parts.
That’s true🙂 if in doubt, go for the shorter duration.