Thread: Mobile (cell) phone etiquette when with live people Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025406
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
This CBC article, Is it OK to be on your smartphone during a meeting?, came at a time when I just had the exact experience of this.
I was running a meeting and I heard the usual vibration, the person got the phone from their pocket and looked at it. It didn't help that they had just asked a question of me. What I did was stop talking in mid sentence. The train of thought was broken, and I asked them restate their question. It was completely lost, and people began to whisper things.
Is it not acceptable to turn to your phone during a meeting? What about if you are talking just to one person? I have no idea how to handle this, except as I note above, just to stop talking and wait.
On a different time, I spoke to a man with a back injury, on the job, who said the guy holding the other end let go with one hand to answer his phone, causing injury. That one seems very clear and a ban on use of cell/smart phones seems sensible there.
[ 11. May 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is it not acceptable to turn to your phone during a meeting? What about if you are talking just to one person? I have no idea how to handle this, except as I note above, just to stop talking and wait.
Nope, it's not at all acceptable, it's downright rude - a polite reminder to turn mobile phones off before the meeting starts is the way to go.
But, if it still happens a 'could you please turn it off now so that we will not be interrupted again' would suffice.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'm with Boogie. Some people have developed a very unhealthy relationship with their smartphone. No doubt an entire thread could be devoted to analysing that, but the fact is that this example is simply being rude. And that's an end of the matter.
(Of course there may be exceptions where a meeting is actually waiting for someone to phone some information in. That's not what we are talking about I assume).
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Yes, it's rude and out of order. It is saying that the other person is much more important than you/the meeting/whatever is.
And if you are waiting for an important call, you tell everyone that at the beginning of the meeting/discussion.
M.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
It's not uncommon at work for people to get called out of meetings by phonecalls or pagers. Usually, the call is more important than the meeting - the call means that something is broken, and needs to be fixed now! You can't tell people you're expecting a call, because things don't break to order.
Yes, sometimes this makes meetings run a little less efficiently, because the person whose opinion you need has just been called away. That's annoying sometimes, but necessary.
Nobody takes personal calls in meetings.
For a long while, I've wanted to have a cellphone that would go to voicemail by default, but tell you to dial 0 to actually make the phone ring, because this is urgent and I have to interrupt the person now.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It is just as rude and unacceptable as taking a call on a conventional telephone when you are in a meeting with someone else. The person/people you are actually with is/are entitled to your presence and attention. You are entitled to theirs.
It's particularly pernicious if you are with someone who is paying for your time.
Whoever Dianne Buckner is, she's wrong. She's probably trying to make excuses for something she does that inside herself, she knows is selfish and wrong.
[ 11. May 2013, 18:48: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on
:
I've recently thought in several meetings that if people would turn off their phones (and laptops) and give their undivided attention then we coud get the meeting done in 15 minutes instead of an hour.
Genuine emergencies and on-call staff aside, turn them off. It's rude and disrespectful to your colleagues.
(I would extend this to down the pub, dinner parties and other social occaisons too).
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Taking calls/texts/emails - no. But my phone carries my notes, notepad, filing system, calendar and agenda - it's a work tool. Turned to silent it doesn't make any noise and it uploads all my notes, engagements, to-do lists etc to online versions so I can access them from any Internet enabled computer. It can also be used to look anything up that needs checked and it can key word search all my work documents - instead of hunting through piles of paper. I can also send and share information to other people at once. Modern smartphones are laptops that fit in your pocket - turn them to their silent setting and they're no different from the traditional accoutrements that people take to meetings and a lot more useful.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I guess it's multi-tasking.
Mind you, I can set up a 'fake call' on my phone which is set to ring 5 minutes into a meeting that i suspect might be boring and will give me an excuse to leave.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I guess it's multi-tasking.
It's the illusion of multi-tasking. People have this unfounded belief that they can read an email or text a response and still pay attention to what's happening in the meeting. But the reality is, 5 seconds later they have tuned out everything that's being said.
...Then to make matters worse, when they finish reading/texting, they'll look up and ask a question that was covered 2 minutes ago, when they were lost in their smartphone.
Sure, use your cell to access documents, notes, etc. Keep it out (on silent) where you can see it if you have a real emergency or urgent call you're expecting (and yes, as suggested earlier, say that up front-- apologetically). If you must take a call-- or send a text-- step outside.
[ 11. May 2013, 20:12: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Completely unacceptable to talk or listen to your phone. Now routine to look at documents, take notes, look at email etc. Makes the meeting go better because you can look up stuff you are talking about.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
People have this unfounded belief that they can read an email or text a response and still pay attention to what's happening in the meeting.
Founded, in my case. YMMV.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
People have this unfounded belief that they can read an email or text a response and still pay attention to what's happening in the meeting.
It depends what the email is. Trivial stuff (what time can we meet to discuss X, where is document Y, who should we ask to do Z etc.) doesn't distract me at all. I can deal with that and still pay attention.
More complicated questions take more of my attention. Sometimes, I'm sitting in a meeting purely to ensure that decisions that affect my stuff don't get made without me explaining why it's a bad idea. In that case, I don't need to pay detailed attention to the bulk of the meeting - I just need to sit up and listen when the discussion moves in particular directions.
And then there's the third category, which requires my complete focus, and the rest of the room could get up and leave without me noticing.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For a long while, I've wanted to have a cellphone that would go to voicemail by default, but tell you to dial 0 to actually make the phone ring, because this is urgent and I have to interrupt the person now.
Most folks would go ahead and press 0 anyway because they will think it is urgent. If it really isn't, oh well. That's not their problem and will figure you're a jerk for having them press one more button. Just have it go to voicemail. I don't know how long a message you can record telling them to leave a message, but I'd like mine to say "I never answer my phone because you might be someone I don't want to talk to. Leave a message. If I really want to talk to you I will call back when I can't find anything else to do".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
People have this unfounded belief that they can read an email or text a response and still pay attention to what's happening in the meeting.
It depends what the email is. Trivial stuff (what time can we meet to discuss X, where is document Y, who should we ask to do Z etc.) doesn't distract me at all. I can deal with that and still pay attention.
Yes, as we've seen here, that's the conventional assumption. My experience says otherwise. Time and time again, I've heard the same claim from colleagues, students, etc.-- we all seem to think *we're* able to handle it, juggle multiple conversations, with no problem. But in pretty much every instance, I've then witnessed the complete inability to follow the discussion after as little as 5 min. looking at their email/text. Asking a question that was just answered is just one of the many dead giveaways. Generally the asker truly believes s/he has been paying attn the whole time, has no clue they've missed an entire conversational stream.
YMMV? Sure. But I suspect not as much as you are thinking.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
You kids get off my lawn!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
You kids get off my lawn!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Driving while talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk. People think they are multi-tasking but the brain doesn't really multi-task, it goes back and forth between the two attentions.
It's not really about smart phones, it's about priorities and whether the meeting is a priority or not. Back ten years ago I had friends who would answer the phone in the middle of a prayer meeting and walk out of the room talking.
I said "can't you turn it off for one hour? People can leave a message and you call them back." They said "it might be my child, and my child might be in trouble somewhere, I have to answer it right away."
We used to be able to be out of the house for a few hours or out of contact at a meeting unless the secretary could be convinced the need was urgent enough to get you out of the meeting, and the world didn't fall apart! I don't believe there are suddenly so many emergencies today.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Driving while talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk. People think they are multi-tasking but the brain doesn't really multi-task, it goes back and forth between the two attentions.
Absolutely. (And it's the same for having a conversation with people in the car - it's just that they tend to be a bit more context-sensitive as they can see when a tricky bit requires your full attention.)
quote:
We used to be able to be out of the house for a few hours or out of contact at a meeting unless the secretary could be convinced the need was urgent enough to get you out of the meeting, and the world didn't fall apart! I don't believe there are suddenly so many emergencies today.
No, but there are fewer secretaries.
[ 11. May 2013, 23:46: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There is no yes or no answer to this, it is contextual. There are times when a call is more important and having a mobile is the only reason I can spare time for a meeting.
And surely most have you have experienced a participant in a meeting being called from the room by an assistant? How is this different? How is this other than completely normal?
Yes, there are people far too tied to their devices. Few people need to check as often as they do. However, I can think of no time where interruptions were not a possibility. Speaking to older colleagues, this seems to hold true for them.
Most meetings I attend, mobiles are on the table. A quick glance will assess if more attention is necessary. Just don't be stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
You kids get off my lawn!
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Do physicians take calls and text messages during surgery? Dentists during drilling? Police while ticketting drivers? Teachers in math class? Priests during communion? Lovers during sex? Jesus on the cross?
If these are okay, then I guess I'll accept phones for calls and text messages in meetings. But I still want to send a bill for the wasted staff time to you.
As for setting a phone to go off in a predicted boring meeting, that's a form of lying and deceit. Better is to be honest, and either not attend or indicate that the meeting is not to your liking. I won't be doing business with you or your company.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
no prophet: Dentists during drilling?
Yes. Don't get me started...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Do physicians take calls and text messages during surgery? Dentists during drilling? Police while ticketting drivers? Teachers in math class? Priests during communion? Lovers during sex? Jesus on the cross?
Hence the word context. I would not expect any of these examples to call a meeting during their described activities.
A meeting needs to be scheduled, but acquiring information does not always follow a schedule. If that information is vital to the meeting or supersedes the meeting, the call must be taken. We do not all have the luxury of single projects or single clients.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Of course there are extraordinary circumstances where a call must be taken-- either because it's a real emergency, or because it may contain information helpful to the meeting itself. But that's the point-- they are extraordinary-- by definition, not the norm. In extraordinary circumstances, one can explain the situation and apologize for the disruption.
I understand meetings can be tedious and boring. But I would suggest that perhaps many meeting are tedious precisely because of these sorts of distractions. When people are checking their phones or texting, they WILL miss half the conversation. That means things will have to be repeated-- sometimes more than once. That will be tedious to those who were paying attn. the first time around-- which may lead them to want to check out too, creating a vicious cycle of tedium. Whereas if everyone came on time, ready to set aside distractions and give their full attn., possibly the meetings would be done in half the time and feel far less onerous.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I've had the experience of a patient answering their mobile phone whilst in a case history interview and assessment. They even stopped talking to me mid sentence. I got up and walked out on them as I felt their rude behaviour needed an equally rude response.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I worked for a very large software empire where many people would spend 6 hours a day in meetings busy reading their email on their laptops.
I find it irritating, but it's part of the larger problem of people calling too many meetings. I agree with Frederic Brooks description of meetings; a break from the drudgery of labor and the loneliness of thought.
I particularly dislike people who take a phone call and disappear. I've been known to leave the meeting before they get back. Doesn't work if it's your manager of course.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Have your phone go off in a court of law and see what happens--
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I don't disagree with you, cliffdweller.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I particularly dislike people who take a phone call and disappear. I've been known to leave the meeting before they get back. Doesn't work if it's your manager of course.
Yes, and this is the rubbish part as far as I am concerned. If the boss is allowed, everyone is. And we are hypocrites if we behave otherwise.
"Someone took a call during during the meeting? What a bastard! Oh, it was you boss? I meant what a bastard anyone would be for complaining!"
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
There are rather different kinds of meetings - a meeting with a client or prospective client is not the same as the kind of internal meeting that Palimpsest describes, or that I have, and as I've mentioned several of the meetings I have I don't need to pay complete attention to - I'm just there to prevent particular kinds of stupid things from happening.
bib's case is interesting, because it reminds me of visits to my doctor. It's common for my doctor to be summoned for a hurried conversation by a nurse in the middle of a consultation, because he is needed to authorize a prescription over the phone for a patient or something similar. He excuses himself, naturally, but neither he nor I see this as particularly unusual. I think both of us would find it odd if I paused the consultation in order to field an urgent query from work.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
bib's case is interesting, because it reminds me of visits to my doctor. It's common for my doctor to be summoned for a hurried conversation by a nurse in the middle of a consultation, because he is needed to authorize a prescription over the phone for a patient or something similar. He excuses himself, naturally, but neither he nor I see this as particularly unusual. I think both of us would find it odd if I paused the consultation in order to field an urgent query from work.
Stephen Potter in Lifemanship recommends having your secretary call you in the middle of doctor consultation and sit there laughing, slapping your thigh and saying "that's priceless" ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Of course there are extraordinary circumstances where a call must be taken-- either because it's a real emergency, or because it may contain information helpful to the meeting itself. But that's the point-- they are extraordinary-- by definition, not the norm. In extraordinary circumstances, one can explain the situation and apologize for the disruption.
Exactly.
I asked my son and his GF the OP question, they are both 25 and entering the world of workplace and meetings. Both made the same response as you.
If you look at your phone, you explain why. "I'll just google that" "Shall I email that to so-and-so?" "I will check my diary" etc. That way the interactions are all in the room, where they should be.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Lovers during sex? Don't get me started.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Lovers during sex? Don't get me started.
eh????
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I've had the experience of a patient answering their mobile phone whilst in a case history interview and assessment. They even stopped talking to me mid sentence. I got up and walked out on them as I felt their rude behaviour needed an equally rude response.
Strikes me that wastes both your time - you could just have asked them to switch it off. As it is, sounds as if you have an entirely wasted appointment.
I'm with the people who point out it is context dependent, and one sits in a large number of meetings that only require your undivided attention for portions of time not the entire duration.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
I work with many clients, and multiple staff at those clients. I rarely find myself in meetings, but will often be one-on-one with staff members.
If I am in a meeting, training session, etc, with more than one person, then I won't answer my phone. If, however, I'm with one person, I will often apologise, answer the call, and quickly determine who it is and how urgent the issue is. I explain that I am on site with another client. I then know whether to direct them to another colleague, take a note to call back, or ask them to email particular details.
The clients I am with are happy with that and understand that could be them on the other end of the phone.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Leo
I guess it's multi-tasking.
Rot. It is just plain rude.
If you are in a meeting YOU ARE IN A MEETING. If you have other things that are more important then don't go.
If a crisis or emergency occurs while you are out-of-touch you have two choices: (a) set up your 'phone so that you get a silent alert and keep the phone switched on in front of you, or (b) take the view that being incommunicado for, say, an hour is not going to have life-or-death consequences.
I regularly go to meetings with someone near the top of a transplant list: their have their phone in Silent mode and place it on the table in front of them. If a person for whom keeping in touch can do it, why can't everyone?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
How on earth did the world keep turning when people weren't able to be called out of any meeting by an importunate phone call? Surely back in those benighted days, there were emergencies that would have benefitted from the immediate attention of people in meetings? And yet, somehow, barring the occasional trauma victim, few people died because other people couldn't be dragged out of meetings on urgent business.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Stephen Potter in Lifemanship recommends having your secretary call you in the middle of doctor consultation and sit there laughing, slapping your thigh and saying "that's priceless"
Here in the UK you get 7 minutes with your GP. If you're ill enough to need to see him/her it seems foolish to waste his and your time like that.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I agree with what seems to be the majority view - phones should be on Silent and Divert during meetings unless there's some critical situation looming that is more important than the meeting. If people need to refer to their calendars/notes/internet during the meeting they should explain what they're doing. And managers should lead by example.
Same with one-to-ones - I don't expect people to be fiddling with their phones while I'm trying to have a conversation with them, unless they say something like "I'm really sorry, do you mind if I reply to this?" and then put the phone away again. On Silent and Divert. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Nen - whose manager doesn't take calls during meetings but does allow one member of staff to do so, for reasons unexplained...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[QUOTE]
I regularly go to meetings with someone near the top of a transplant list: their have their phone in Silent mode and place it on the table in front of them. If a person for whom keeping in touch can do it, why can't everyone?
The nice thing about these sorts of truly extraordinary exceptions is they help set the definition of "emergency". Like most teachers these days, I have a strict "no electronics" rule. Unfortunate, as there are often situations where using electronics would be helpful, but we've all found the distraction to be far more costly than the occasional benefit.
I have had, on occasion, a student with a spouse serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, where contact was sporadic and unpredictable-- they called whenever they could. I gave those students permission to do the same as your colleagues on transplant list-- phone on desk on silent mode.
So that becomes the bar: If you have a spouse serving in a war zone-- or are awaiting a donor organ-- then you can have your cell out, and we will all understand.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
I work with many clients, and multiple staff at those clients. I rarely find myself in meetings, but will often be one-on-one with staff members.
If I am in a meeting, training session, etc, with more than one person, then I won't answer my phone. If, however, I'm with one person, I will often apologise, answer the call, and quickly determine who it is and how urgent the issue is. I explain that I am on site with another client. I then know whether to direct them to another colleague, take a note to call back, or ask them to email particular details.
The clients I am with are happy with that and understand that could be them on the other end of the phone.
Are they? Or are they just being politer than you are?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
As with anything, it should be a matter of responsible use. I am having a difficult time understanding why people find this concept hard to grasp.
Are there people who abuse the other participants in a meeting by answering unnecessary calls? Of course.
Though, accurately and honestly, I have had more of my time wasted by unnecessary meetings than phone interruptions.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Our internal meetings last maybe 45 mins. Meetings with outside people can cost upwards of 1000/hour in billed time losses. I expect people we're paying 200/hour to pay attention.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Last time: C O N T E X T
(lilBuddha stepping back onto the pavement)
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you are in a meeting YOU ARE IN A MEETING. If you have other things that are more important then don't go.
And if all meetings were optional that would be good advice.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though, accurately and honestly, I have had more of my time wasted by unnecessary meetings than phone interruptions.
Ah there it is! People often behave badly in meetings because they don't see the point of the meeting. Take away their phone and they'll stare out the window, doodle on a pad or mutter jokes to their colleagues.
None of which is to excuse bad behaviour of course.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Leo
I guess it's multi-tasking.
Rot. It is just plain rude.
Depends on the meeting.
If i am counselling someone, the phone is off.
When i was working, if it was a meeting for the sake of having a meeting because it is in the calendar that was complied a year ago, then it stays on. If that is 'rude', then it is an action of revolt from one relatively powerless.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Ah there it is! People often behave badly in meetings because they don't see the point of the meeting. Take away their phone and they'll stare out the window, doodle on a pad or mutter jokes to their colleagues.
None of which is to excuse bad behaviour of course.
Both points are true, and again, I suspect, inter-related. People behave badly and are distracted in meetings because they perceive meetings to be long, tedious, and unnecessary. Similarly, meetings are often long, tedious and unnecessary precisely because people are distracted and inattentive-- leading to unfocused conversation where the same point needs to be repeated for those not paying attn. the first time around.
I'm struck with the cultural difference with Western perspective here and that in Africa (where cell phones are, if anything, even more ubiquitous here). In Africa (or at least central Africa where I've served) you would never have any sort of human interaction-- including business phone calls or meetings-- without a good, lengthy personal discussion. To launch into a discussion of the quarterly report, or even to pick up the phone to order parts from a distributor, without first inquiring about one's health, family, etc. would be not just rude, but unthinkable. Interestingly, while cell phones were ubiquitous and heavily used, I rarely saw anyone take a phone call over a face-to-face conversation, and then only with an apology and explanation.
Something about valuing "efficiency" over human contact.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
As for setting a phone to go off in a predicted boring meeting, that's a form of lying and deceit. Better is to be honest, and either not attend or indicate that the meeting is not to your liking.
Attendance at meetings was compulsory when i was teaching.
Usually 3 per day - breakfast meeting for careers and tutors, lunchtime meeting usually to do with subject teaching - and it was OUR lunchtime. Plus after school meeting for heads of depts. or whatever.
The more highly paid you are, the more responsibility and the more meetings.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Oh - also during the notices at the end of church (if i am in the congregation, not if i am upfront.)
Out place does a sort of open mike where anyone can come out and speak - usually lasts longer than the sermon and includes waiting patiently for each person to walk to the front after the last one has finished and then witnessing them check to see if the mike is switched on.
An ideal time to check my phone, especially since i have already read the notice sheet before the service started.
If I am being 'rude', then i think the notice givers are also being rude in taking up my time with stuff that they they have already told me in print.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How on earth did the world keep turning when people weren't able to be called out of any meeting by an importunate phone call? Surely back in those benighted days, there were emergencies that would have benefitted from the immediate attention of people in meetings? And yet, somehow, barring the occasional trauma victim, few people died because other people couldn't be dragged out of meetings on urgent business.
One reason is that things have changed round the phone. One work colleague talks about in the olden days you had months to do a job we're now expected to get in an afternoon.
Most of our clients were then local, now most of them are not.
On the whole that's a good thing, but it means you can't leave your post a day and come back to it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Getting your own back on having to sit through pointless meetings by using a mobile telephone during them, only works because it is unacceptable to talk to or text someone else on one's mobile one while someone present wants your attention. If that wasn't bad manners, you wouldn't be being subversive by doing it.
There are too many pointless meetings and even worthwhile ones go on too long. There are also too many managers who think one way of showing your power and greater importance is to make sure others have to waste their time dancing attendance on you. I don't think (I hope) any of us disagree with either of those sentences.
So in scale of descending awfulness, can we agree? :-
1. Boss making or receiving telephone calls during meeting and expecting everyone else to sit around doing nothing while he or she does so.
2. Making or receiving a call on a mobile telephone while in a personal interface with a real person - unless that call is directly facilitating what the interface is about.
3. Making or receiving a call on a mobile telephone while in a meeting where you need to be attending to that part of the meeting.
4. Making or receiving a call on a mobile telephone while in a meeting where what is being discussed has little relevance for you, but you've got to be there either because compulsory presentism requires you, or you're having to hang around waiting for something that relates to you to be dealt with.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Getting your own back on having to sit through pointless meetings by using a mobile telephone during them, only works because it is unacceptable to talk to or text someone else on one's mobile one while someone present wants your attention. If that wasn't bad manners, you wouldn't be being subversive by doing it.
There are too many pointless meetings and even worthwhile ones go on too long. There are also too many managers who think one way of showing your power and greater importance is to make sure others have to waste their time dancing attendance on you. I don't think (I hope) any of us disagree with either of those sentences.
So in scale of descending awfulness, can we agree? :-
1. Boss making or receiving telephone calls during meeting and expecting everyone else to sit around doing nothing while he or she does so.
2. Making or receiving a call on a mobile telephone while in a personal interface with a real person - unless that call is directly facilitating what the interface is about.
3. Making or receiving a call on a mobile telephone while in a meeting where you need to be attending to that part of the meeting.
4. Making or receiving a call on a mobile telephone while in a meeting where what is being discussed has little relevance for you, but you've got to be there either because compulsory presentism requires you, or you're having to hang around waiting for something that relates to you to be dealt with.
Would split 2 into a parallel scale, with the lowest equivalent around 5.
5. E.g at our weekly team meetings, I damn well want them (above me) to answer the phone because it's their job. The meetings designed to help them do it better, not stop them. (weak training would come under the same bracket).
And in one-one if it's quick internal calls can save vast amounts of time searching/being indecisive (we could also do with being better at organising), I know that on the other end of the phone and can apply theory of mind when not on the phone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How on earth did the world keep turning when people weren't able to be called out of any meeting by an importunate phone call? Surely back in those benighted days, there were emergencies that would have benefitted from the immediate attention of people in meetings? And yet, somehow, barring the occasional trauma victim, few people died because other people couldn't be dragged out of meetings on urgent business.
One reason is that things have changed round the phone. One work colleague talks about in the olden days you had months to do a job we're now expected to get in an afternoon.
Most of our clients were then local, now most of them are not.
On the whole that's a good thing, but it means you can't leave your post a day and come back to it.
I have never been to an all-day meeting. May this glad state of affairs never change.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
<Snip>
The clients I am with are happy with that and understand that could be them on the other end of the phone.
Are they? Or are they just being politer than you are?
No, they know that it's the nature of the work. We're a small business supporting IT systems. "I'm with another client; is your system down? Can a colleague help? When do you need me to call back by?"
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Depends on the meeting.
If i am counselling someone, the phone is off.
See, you can do it when it suits YOU.
As to leaving the phone on as an act of rebellion, then I suppose you didn't mind your pupils leaving it on - and answering it - when you taught? Surely the biggest act of rebellion would be not to turn up and/or protest to the relevant people - what you're doing is pretty childish and will make no point whatsoever.
I'm like a number of people on this thread. In any meeting I chair/lead - all phones are off. That said, I only have meetings that are necessary and prune agendas to keep them short - it's true as some have said that there are too many meetings and too many that meander on too long. Try putting timings next to agenda items!
I also will ask those who have an input for one or two items to comne at a certain time, to minimise their loss of time and to ensure that they don't have to listen to a lot of things that they aren't involved in. It wouldn't be the first time that I've invited someone to leave a meeting once their contribution/report was over - previously they'd wasted over an hour a week sitting around. Didn't go down too well.
On an one to one, if someone answers their phone when I'm speaking to them, I'll generally think it's pretty rude.
[ 13. May 2013, 06:55: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think it is OK at a meeting to say in advance that you're leaving your phone on (silent mode, vibrate only) if you're attending a meeting while a very urgent business or personal call is pending.
In the days before mobile phones, I can remember a couple of occasions when I or other colleagues have been called out of a meeting by a colleague or a secretary to deal with something which could not wait. And some things really cannot wait. And the fact that they may happen may be known in advance, yet not rule out attendance at a meeting. So using a mobile phone to give that sort of signal seems in order to me; no different in principle to the emergency interrupt by a third party.
We've had this happen at church for folks who are carers of the chronically ill. The interrupt doesn't seem at all inappropriate to me under those circumstances, when the alternative is that the carer may not be able to get to church at all.
Mobile phones simply provide alternative means of getting a genuine emergency signal. That can be useful.
Of course that can be abused, either by caller or receiver, but it is the abuse which is the bad behaviour, not the option of using the technology.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Seems to be a confusion on this thread on what is 'off' and what is 'using' too.
Having your phone on silent is not the phone being switched off. Checking your email, whilst - for example - the whole meeting decides on the venue of the next meeting (which happens to be when you're on leave) is not disruptive.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In any meeting I chair/lead - all phones are off. [..]
I also will ask those who have an input for one or two items to comne at a certain time, to minimise their loss of time and to ensure that they don't have to listen to a lot of things that they aren't involved in.
Which is all fine and sensible, but not always possible. In the kind of meeting where I am only half-present, listening out for the discussion to take a particular direction or two, the point is that nobody knows whether I'll have to "listen to a lot of things that I'm not involved in" because they don't know whether the things they are trying to do are going to cause a problem. That's why I'm at the meeting. If I knew that the person calling the meeting understood what was relevant for me, I probably wouldn't need to show up.
Like lilBuddha has said above, it's context-dependent. Not all meetings are the same.
The real answer is "If you should be paying all your attention to something, you shouldn't be doing something else at the same time," and this covers answering email in meetings, reading books at the dinner table, or looking at the interesting poster on the wall while your friend is droning on about his problems.
Mobile telephones are not a special case.
(And yes, of course, in an emergency, you excuse yourself from the gathering and take the call. Again, emergency is context-dependent. Internal meetings can be interrupted or preempted by any more important/urgent need of the organization. Meetings with external parties should be interrupted less often, and within these categories, some meetings are more important than others.
There are plenty of cases where it's just not appropriate to interrupt a meeting at all, unless the building is on fire. Those just aren't the kind of meetings that I have.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mobile phones simply provide alternative means of getting a genuine emergency signal. That can be useful.
Of course that can be abused, either by caller or receiver, but it is the abuse which is the bad behaviour, not the option of using the technology.
This point has been made repeatedly here, there's no one disputing it (see earlier comment re: why meetings are so long & tedious). The problem is, what you're describing should, by definition, not be the norm. Whereas what we're seeing here is that cell interruptions have become the norm. Clearly not all those interruptions are emergencies.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Checking your email, whilst - for example - the whole meeting decides on the venue of the next meeting (which happens to be when you're on leave) is not disruptive.
If it's the last item on the agenda, probably won't be disruptive, but will be perceived as rude, and rightfully so IMHO. You're making a rather obvious-- and rude-- comment about whoever is speaking or leading the discussion. Even more so, if it's not the last item on the agenda, it WILL be disruptive, for the reasons mentioned above. You WILL miss part of the discussion that follows, whether you realize it or not. Things will have to be repeated, to the chagrin of those listening the first time. So because you couldn't give up 5 min. of your time while, say, 15 people discussed something irrelevant to you, you'll end up wasting 5 min. of time multiplied by the 15 people who have to wait while we bring you up to speed.
Of course, you're going to insist you don't miss anything, that you can multi-task and know the minute the topic shifts to something of interest. And you really, really believe it. You have absolutely no clue that important things were said while you were lost. But those of us who don't text/ tweet/ check email during meetings WILL be aware of what just happened, and, whether they say anything or not, will feel irritated by it-- because what you've just said is that 5 minutes of your time is more important than 5 min. of everyone else's time.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In the kind of meeting where I am only half-present, listening out for the discussion to take a particular direction or two, the point is that nobody knows whether I'll have to "listen to a lot of things that I'm not involved in" because they don't know whether the things they are trying to do are going to cause a problem. That's why I'm at the meeting. If I knew that the person calling the meeting understood what was relevant for me, I probably wouldn't need to show up.
Like lilBuddha has said above, it's context-dependent. Not all meetings are the same.
Again, no one's disputing that.
The earlier suggestion of having timed agenda items, if possible, is a better solution.
Another alternative when that's not possible, is to make an apologetic excuse at the beginning of the meeting-- pleading press of work, indicate that you're going to try to get some things done during the meeting, but will be there if my input is needed. And please sit in back.
Yes, it is context dependent. People get that. But acknowledging the situation-- and that these are human interactions-- is important.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mobile phones simply provide alternative means of getting a genuine emergency signal. That can be useful.
Of course that can be abused, either by caller or receiver, but it is the abuse which is the bad behaviour, not the option of using the technology.
The problem is, what you're describing should, by definition, not be the norm. Whereas what we're seeing here is that cell interruptions have become the norm.
While I agree, and I certainly operate the "exception, not norm" rule at the (very few) meetings I either chair or faciliate these days, it is in the end a matter for the Chair of any meeting. It's possible to lay down criteria, have "standing orders" for any meeting you chair. It's possible to make policy that recognises the norm and the exceptions and it's possible for the Chair of a meeting to make that known and do things to impress on folks that's the way of things.
For less formal meetings, I don't think anyone has a chance of enforcing any such standards. In such settings these days, personally I've accepted that the world has changed. However, quite a good tactic is to quickly give permission whether the person has asked for it or not! People get the idea that a mobile phone interrupt is permissible by agreement, but a bit rude if assumed to be OK. I've found that works quite well with most people.
[ 13. May 2013, 17:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Frankly, I think your meetings sound as if they have a level of organisational support we are unable to meet due to being chronically understaffed.
The ability to be unreachable, assumes that there is a back-up option if you are unreachable. Never mind meetings, I have had me people contact me at home when I am off sick about clinical crises because we have no cover.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0