**10,000 Fans Incentive Program Can you accept a meeting lasting longer than one hour?
Bihan Fengwen.
A person's normal attention span usually ranges from 15 minutes to 50 minutes, depending on age. Toddlers are around 15 minutes, elementary school students are around 40 minutes, and adults usually have attention spans of 50 minutes. Beyond this time period, attention will drop and efficiency will decrease.
A cadre who has worked for decades said that in those years of working in townships and towns, regular work meetings were held every Monday morning, which were generally presided over by the township mayors, and the party committee secretaries directly arranged the work of the week.
The assignment of work is straightforward, simple and direct, only talking about key tasks, all in a columnistic style, one work arrangement, how many columns, not to talk about any big reason, just what to do? What do you do? How?
The time is generally about half an hour, and you can also raise any questions at the meeting. After the meeting, everyone was busy with their own work, some went to the village, and some worked in an orderly manner. Usually there are not too many meetings, many times you can sink to the village, sink to the scene, or go to the higher departments to report and communicate the work, and the work ultimately depends on the result.
It has to be said that the problem of "meeting in the sea and meeting style" in some local units is worrisome, such as too many and excessively frequent meetings, lengthy and protracted meetings, empty and boring meetings, and high-profile meetings and engaging in forms of battles, all of which have been manifested in some local units.
Returning to the question of "whether the meeting can last more than one hour", I think that we should also look at it dialectically, and we cannot simply use time as the criterion, otherwise we may fall into dogma or even another form of formalism.
However, judging from the content of many meetings now, it is obvious that it does not take an hour, or even does not need to be held at all, and can directly arrange work on the spot or make a ** and the next notice.
Therefore, the key to solving the problem of "Wenshan Huihai" is to work the word "subtraction" and really do a good job in subtraction.
The first is to reduce the affairs of the conference and focus on practical issues. That is to say, the important thing to hold a meeting is to solve the problem, so it is not necessary to focus too much on the affairs of the meeting, such as the monogram, rostrum, seats, sign-in, tea, dress, etc., do not spend too much energy, do not pay too much attention to the form, but keep everything simple. The key is to study the topics of the meeting, what practical problems to solve, what measures to formulate, and what goals to achieve.
The second is to reduce the material and re-write the speech. One of the major burdens of holding meetings now is that there are a lot of materials, such as meeting plans, notices, presiding speeches, documents, speeches, and so on, which must not only be written well, but also printed well. When the meeting is held, the leader just reads it according to the script. On the one hand, holding meetings in this way increases the burden of writing materials, especially when there are too many meetings; On the other hand, let the meeting go through the motions, and the long-term reading of the manuscript will lack thinking, research, and initiative, the reader does not know, the listener is at a loss, the meeting is over, and the matter is over.
The third is to reduce unilateral speeches and emphasize interactive exchanges. Such meetings may be longer. However, some meetings are about listening to opinions and suggestions, studying and discussing solutions, and of course it is not simply a matter of time. Some meetings are lengthy and protracted, and only a few people are speaking, and everyone else is an audience, and they lack in-depth and necessary communication, and they often have little understanding of the spirit of the meeting. It is necessary to speak freely about this kind of exchange, so as to form a consensus, and the implementation will have immediate results.
Fourth, reduce assessment and emphasize actual results. Nowadays, some inspectors are always keen to check whether there is a meeting and whether there are meeting minutes. Decision-making, research, and discussion involving major matters can of course depend on whether a meeting is held as required, but does not any work require a meeting? Such a form of assessment, on the one hand, makes it difficult to eradicate the "sea of meetings"; On the other hand, there are also deliberate traces or fraud, and a meeting is replaced by several monograms. In fact, the assessment should focus on the result orientation, whether the actual work has been done, whether the target effect has been achieved, and even the traces should be natural traces, rather than deliberate traces.
Some experts have suggested that it is necessary to make great efforts to get rid of superstitions, no longer take the presence or absence of meeting records as the standard for accountability, and improve the performance-oriented cadre evaluation index system.
In addition, while doing a good job of subtraction, you can actually check how well the addition is done. For example, if you want to show that the leader attaches importance to a certain work, you don't need to look at whether the meeting is held, but look at what has been done and what has been implemented in terms of safeguard measures such as people, finance, materials, resources, and mechanisms, which may be the real attention.