Elon Musk's 6 Rules of Productivity

[Winston]

Elon Musk's 6 Rules of Productivity

1. No Large Meetings

"Excessive meetings are the blight of big companies and almost always get worse over time," he wrote. "Please get [rid] of all large meetings, unless you're certain they are providing value to the whole audience."

2. No Long Meetings

"Also get rid of frequent meetings, unless you are dealing with an extremely urgent matter. Meeting frequency should drop rapidly once the urgent matter is resolved."

3. Don't Be Afraid to Leave

"Walk out of a meeting or drop off a call as soon as it is obvious you aren't adding value," he wrote. "It is not rude to leave; it is rude to make someone stay and waste their time."

4. Don't Use Acronyms

"Don't use acronyms or nonsense words for objects, software or processes at Tesla," the email states. "In general, anything that requires an explanation inhibits communication. We don't want people to have to memorize a glossary just to function at Tesla."

5. Communication Is Not Subject to Chain of Command

"Communication should travel via the shortest path necessary to get the job done, not through the chain of command," Musk writes. "Any manager who attempts to enforce chain of command communication will soon find themselves working elsewhere."

6. Use Common Sense.

"If following a "company rule" is obviously ridiculous in a particular situation, such that it would make for a great Dilbert cartoon, then the rule should change," he wrote.

 

[vcp]

This is the exact antithesis of working at Intel.

I was once in a meeting so large, held in a cafeteria, that I could better hear two other meetings going on nearby, rather than the spokesman of the meeting I was in.

When meetings were held in the too-small meeting rooms, it was standard practice for up to a dozen people to be standing outside the room in the hallway trying to listen.

And that's all aside from the CYA BS going on in the meeting.

 

[aerostadt]

Sounds pretty good, except for Rule #5. Rule #5 is too simplistic and too general.

 

[ebruce1361]

Sounds pretty good, except for Rule #5. Rule #5 is too simplistic and too general.

Yeah, that ideology could get problematic. Even with a small company of a dozen or so total employees, going to the owner/CEO with some trivial problem like you forgot your company email password or need to get a pen out of the locked supply closet could be a significant disruption. Even communicating things like new ideas on how to do *task* better or cheaper doesn't necessarily need to go straight to the top.

 

[bguffer]

Yeah, that ideology could get problematic. Even with a small company of a dozen or so total employees, going to the owner/CEO with some trivial problem like you forgot your company email password or need to get a pen out of the locked supply closet could be a significant disruption. Even communicating things like new ideas on how to do *task* better or cheaper doesn't necessarily need to go straight to the top.

I suspect that is aimed more at communications between sibling groups not having to go through the parent person/group first.

 

[prfesser]

If everyone participating in a meeting was required to stand for the entire meeting, instead of sitting, a lot more would get done and there's be a lot fewer "useless meeting" complaints.

A useful meeting is one in which a decision has been made. If the meeting doesn't have that as a goal, then the meeting is horse hockey!

Best -- Terry

 

[boatgeek]

A useful meeting is one in which a decision has been made. If the meeting doesn't have that as a goal, then the meeting is horse hockey!

Does making go a list of action items count as a decision? I’ve had what I though we’re productive meetings that didn’t make decisions, though they did generate (and assign) lists of questions.

I have a vivid memory of a senior management meeting at my former job, where we had well over a thousand dollars an hour of billable time sitting around the table. The meeting organizer got to the end of the agenda and said, “We’ll, that’s the end of the agenda, but we have about 20 minutes left in the meeting. Does anyone want to talk about anything?” I did manage to stifle my “Nooooooooo!!!” But not by much.

 

[DaHabes]

If everyone participating in a meeting was required to stand for the entire meeting, instead of sitting, a lot more would get done and there's be a lot fewer "useless meeting" complaints.

A useful meeting is one in which a decision has been made. If the meeting doesn't have that as a goal, then the meeting is horse hockey!

Best -- Terry

The best sized meetings from a standpoint of participation are either 1 or 3 people. Even numbers of participants can often result in hung juries . With one, you always get a decision. With three its viable to get a 2 to 1 result. With 5 or more decisions become more difficult exponentially with the number of participants.

For any decision you need the power of the third option. One option that no one wants or agrees that it's a non-starter (the best for this is "Do nothing" because it's always the easiest option), another option that is better but is truly suboptimal for a key reason and the option you want. Find reasons to eliminate all other options (aka, they are worse than the middling option) and the one you want can often prevail.

 

[DaHabes]

Yeah, that ideology could get problematic. Even with a small company of a dozen or so total employees, going to the owner/CEO with some trivial problem like you forgot your company email password or need to get a pen out of the locked supply closet could be a significant disruption. Even communicating things like new ideas on how to do *task* better or cheaper doesn't necessarily need to go straight to the top.

We're talking about meetings here, not going around the chain of command outside of a meeting. The rule as stated for meetings is that anyone can speak up regardless of who is in the meeting, meaning if someone in your chain of command isn't their, it's still OK to speak up. I agree with that philosophy. If your COC is not there, for whatever reason, be transparent and state that "so-and-so will likely disagree, but....". That way you aren't undermining them, you are simply transparently expressing a difference of opinion you believe needs to be brought into the open in the broader interest of the decision making process.

 

[DaHabes]

Does making go a list of action items count as a decision? I’ve had what I though we’re productive meetings that didn’t make decisions, though they did generate (and assign) lists of questions.

I have a vivid memory of a senior management meeting at my former job, where we had well over a thousand dollars an hour of billable time sitting around the table. The meeting organizer got to the end of the agenda and said, “We’ll, that’s the end of the agenda, but we have about 20 minutes left in the meeting. Does anyone want to talk about anything?” I did manage to stifle my “Nooooooooo!!!” But not by much.

The proper response in that situation is "Nope. I have work to do.", get up and leave.