Satan should chair your meetings: A literature lover’s guide to office politics
An interesting perspective on meetings that I was once told is:<p>&quot;Meetings are for ratification of an already-made decision&quot;<p>This sounds like some of the &#x27;bad management&#x27; examples mentioned in the article.  However, this was further explained:<p>&quot;The hard work in getting agreement is in prior discussion with, and feedback from, individual decision makers&quot;.<p>This is essentially having multiple smaller lead-up meetings to discuss the ins and outs and work out the kinks, and then the &quot;big&quot; meeting is primarily theatrical in explaining the end result and ratifying the decision.  This won&#x27;t work in all contexts, but the methodology could be an overall time saver and allow for more well-thought-out compromises or changes, as it&#x27;s done over a larger span of time.  It also means quieter and more thoughtful decision-makers are given equal standing.<p>Creative solutions can often come out of the blue, and it&#x27;s unlikely that it&#x27;ll strike conveniently during the X-minute meeting window whilst trying to listen to and process a whole bunch of other peoples&#x27; opinions.  Give them some time to come to the boil.