Expected to start teams meetings?

[surrpundedby]

I’ve started a new job and my diary for now is very empty with few meetings and there’s quite a lot of training material that I have to go through.

My manager is always in back to back meetings and he’s put two 30 minute catchups in with me for the first month. From experience meetings tend to overrun so I’ve waited for him to be ready for our call and then I’ll hop on as I’m just reading - or he might need a loo break or get a drink.

Today it got to 5 past our meeting and he messaged me to say “are you joining”. So I started the call and he said that I am expected to always start the meetings.

Obviously once I’m more busy I won’t even give it a second thought as to who starts a meeting, but this seems such a weird rule to me.

How does this work on teams? What if you are both waiting for the other persons to be ready - I.e start the meeting? No one would ever take the initiative!

I imagine all these people sitting with their finger over the mouse but never actually starting the meeting😂😂.

I always start the meeting. Our CEO set the expectation for behavior online very early in COVID. You start and join meetings on time. Whoever is there first starts. For larger ‘town hall’ type meetings the admin team will start them ten minutes early to check everything is working.

But you don’t actually interrupt the meeting, unless I use an entirely different version of Teams from everyone else. This is what I can’t understand about the OP and some other comments on the thread. Joining the meeting at the time appointed is not intrusive. If it’s scheduled, you and the other person will have a gazillion notifications anyway.

It pops up a so-and-so has started the meeting message. It is an interruption, most people feel like they need to message back or curtail the call they're on, when normally there's no need for that when it's just a 1:1. It has a similar effect to knocking on the door of an occupied meeting room. Which I would do if there was a multi person meeting scheduled but wouldn't if it's just two of us and we can do it later.

Lots of issues here then. Meeting discipline — don’t run over, or only when absolutely unavoidable. But mostly if you still have things to say you agree to schedule a follow-up. If there’s a crisis, you cancel/postpone other meetings anyway. Planning — don’t schedule actual back to back meetings. Who does this? Perhaps super high-billing lawyers, But everyone else should control their diaries. Finally, don’t feel you have to reply if you’re only going to be a little late. A couple of minutes is perfectly fine. Longer and you’re being discourteous— solved by better planning and meeting discipline.

My job is not holding 1:1 meetings, it's let us say Doing Stuff. If someone calls me for help with Doing Stuff, helping them is priority, or it will hold up the Doing of Stuff. If there's a scheduled meeting I would put them off till later because meetings with multiple people are hard to schedule and often time-critical to Doing Stuff. A 1:1 is just catching up on how the Doing Stuff is going and setting priorities for future Stuff Doing, and can be held any time there isn't more urgent Stuff to be Done.

In summary 1:1s are treated differently and less formally. Other calls start on time, or usually slightly before time by the organiser/presenter. Works for us. I guess conventions develop however will work most efficiently - we find it most efficient if the person who was for whatever reason on a previous call starts the 1:1.

It's not a bad thing to get a notification of your next meeting if the one you're on is overrunning 'though. You probably should be bringing it to a close or having a more effective conversation, especially if your day is back to back meetings. Otherwise your schedule is going to get really messed up.

I think this is where our culture differs, we don't see a 1:1 as the same as a normal meeting. Maybe if you think of it as more like going for coffee with a colleague.

A Teams meeting is like any other meeting. You turn up on time (or slightly early if you are me) and wait for everyone else to join. If I was your boss I would expect you to be there waiting for me and not to have to chivvy you up. I

very rude not to turn up on time.

Sending a quick teams chat isn’t interrupting, if they are busy then they can just choose not to read it.

You join at the booked time and wait. If you’re running late, you pop a message on the teams chat.

This is the protocol. I’d take a dim view if my team didn’t follow it.

Well I don’t find it an interruption and would not appreciate my team never joining on time. If I know I will considerably late I message them and tell them I will let them know when I am ready to join, otherwise I expect them to dial in on time/ as close to on time as they can.
if they were routinely late I would be concerned.

Join at the right time. Always

if that’s the culture in your work then that’s fine. As you’ve seen on the thread it is not the culture in most companies and clearly not the op’s so you keeping saying that is how it works for you is not helpful to the op who needs to learn the culture in her work.

Say 'got it.'

Always be there just before.

Start the meeting.

There are a lot worse things you could be posting about here. That's nothing.

I have said more than once that OP should do whatever her current firm do, I just object to ridiculing her for being surprised when it's different from the places she's previously worked. Or telling me my colleagues are doing things wrong and need to sort ourselves out when our system works perfectly fine for us.

And seniors who are ready deliberately not starting a meeting until the junior has is apparently alien to plenty of us to the extent various posters have told OP she must have misunderstood that bit. Or maybe she's reporting exactly what she was told and their culture is different again.

I can really tell if this is a wind up - if it is, well done OP, you did a fantastic job. If it isn't, I don't know how it's possible to have such a mangled and frankly stupid outlook.

Wow. Just Wow.
Ok. You get riled up with someone using the word boss thinking it's outdated. You have an authority problem. And you will either
Ok whatever you want to call it - there are people who will be your boss. Your line manager.

You need to get your head around it. Or think about a solitary job, or working for yourself.

I'm sure when you are the boss you be fine with the authority in your hands.

this is a helpful point

@LucyLoo1972great work resurrecting a zombie thread well over a year old to add that pointless comment.

Just start at the allocated time and do what your managers asks without fussing FGS.

yes join at allocated time

will also give your boss the oppotunity to cut the other meeting short

Zombie thread.

Yes, if op is still around though it would be interesting to know if she is still in the job.

Not really, she clearly is clueless