Why the hell you are still having stand-ups?

Do we even need a daily stand-up? - the question that sparked it all

My friend asked this question at one of the companies I have worked for. Let me describe how that stand-up looked. For the first 2-3 minutes we gathered, rarely people were on time. No wonder that they were frustrated. It also prompted me to understand the "what and why" of this meeting. Since I started my career in software, the stand-up has been there. You can read about its history here (written by Jeff Sutherland ). The origin story dates back to 1993. There were two core ideas regarding the output of the meeting:

1. Each person should know and commit to an output for today.
2. The team should identify blockers and opportunities for cooperation.

To many of us, this comes as no surprise, but how often do stand-ups look like that? I attended many stand-ups that looked exactly like a "what not to do" version described in the article. People just saying what they did last day and what they hope to do today. We can sprinkle that with some random announcements here and there.

Collaboration is one of the most important tools when it comes to problem-solving. Meetings are a form of partnership that can and should lead to excellent outcomes. But, they come with high - although hidden - costs. They are so common that everybody thinks they know how to do it. I believe otherwise. Running stand-ups (and meetings in general) is a skill that we must develop. We will dive into costs, problem identification, and solutions for the mighty stand-up.

The Hidden Costs of Inefficient Stand-Ups

What is at stake? Calculate the time wasted.

The usual stand-up takes around 15 minutes. Assuming that everybody is on time, which - is mine, remote experience - is rarely the case.

Including inertia, it takes 20 minutes. It does not sound like much. It is not a lot of time. After you switch the tasks you are working on, it will take around 15 minutes for your brain to focus on the new one. As meetings are a social interaction, they are more stressful (or exciting). It may take over 45 minutes to recover! Quite a few people take a short break before such meetings. I do not believe that 45-60 minutes of productive time per person cost is an overstatement.

Is it bad? That depends. If you increase team output by more than it costs to invest, you are in a great place. Otherwise, that's what I want to help you with!

To put it in investment terms. You are investing around 10% of the team's (your time included!) productive time (usually in the morning, which is the best time for focus). Are you getting good returns? How much do you think? If it is not at least 11% then why bother?

Disrupting Deep Work and Focus

The single most valuable resource of any knowledge worker is their focus. Since Cal Newport's "Deep Work," most of us know that. Teams and individual people need uninterrupted periods to deliver value. One meeting is not a big deal, but we must understand that it reduces people's capacity to perform Deep Work. Meetings are a great way to convince yourself and others that you are a very busy person. Busy is not productive. Busy is not delivering value. Stand-ups are a great place to foster focus. Ensure that people give all their attention to the right problems and have the right tools to solve them.

Are Stand-Ups Still Relevant for Your Team?

The Original Purpose of Stand-Ups - Does it apply to you?

To understand what stand-ups are for, we will now explore their original context. It is the year 1993. Michael Jackson performed during the Super Bowl half-time show. Jurassic Park is the highest-grossing movie. The Internet was popular, but nowhere near today's level. Jeff Sutherland, inventor of Scrum, and his team decided to investigate team efficiency. They did it because:

"situation early on was so bad, and so much money was being wasted—billions and billions each year—that people spent a lot of time studying why, and there was data on everything" (source ).

They found a paper describing the methodology of a team at Borland Software Corporation. The team was working on an early version of Excel for Windows. They were very productive. They gathered every day for about an hour. They discussed how they were performing and gather around any challenges. Jeff's team tinkered with the process. Instead of meeting for an hour, they've met for 15 minutes. They focused on collaboration, identifying and solving roadblocks. According to Jeff, team performance improved by a whopping 400%.

Now, let us describe the context of that team:

• The team was physically in the same location. They worked during the same hours.
• The team agreed on what they wanted to achieve in a unit of time (Sprint Goal).
• The team was able to collaborate.
• The team was able to experiment with their approach.

I am a big proponent of remote work. During my career, I've mostly worked remotely. Overall, I believe that (for me) the benefits outweigh the costs. But remote work is harder. When you are near your colleagues, it is easier to work together on the same thing. You do not need any additional software. Synchronization happens more naturally. It has drawbacks, but (for me) it is obvious. Collaboration is easier with co-location.

The next thing is - the sprint goal. It is hard but required to define a sprint goal(s) that the whole team (product included) can work towards. Without a clear, deliverable goal it becomes too absurd to try to achieve "it".

The last two points refer to team culture. The team should want to achieve a sprint goal and be open to experimentation in their process. Easy for me to write. Very hard to cultivate.

The Warning Signs of a Bad Stand-Up

I will provide a few things to be on the lookout for. The more you see them, the more significant problems you are facing. Do not worry. Running great stand-up (or other form of meeting) is a skill. You/Your team can learn it.

A. You cannot state the benefit of the stand-up.

Everyone on the team should be able to state the benefit of the stand-up clearly. No matter if you are a leader or an individual contributor. To diagnose oneself, you can start with this simple question. What are the last three challenges that were either overcome or people committed to solving them in an upcoming day? You can try this question with your colleagues. The answers might surprise you.

Be careful about knee-jerk responses. Get to the bottom of things. "Stand-up helps us to be more productive." - this is a great sentiment, but it is not very informative. Your goal is to find examples of how stand-up increases productivity. What you might learn is that it does help some team members. Running great stand-up is not the only task for meeting facilitators. All team members must contribute.

B. You do not understand updates coming from other people.

The more tenure you have spent in the team, the more this point applies. Stand-ups are not places to share in-depth knowledge about projects. Yet, if someone is talking about their contribution and you do not understand a word - this should prompt you to speak with this person to understand the context. You can not spot opportunities to help or get help if you do not know what people are doing.

C. People are not listening to each other.

When the meeting is three-quarters done or when most junior people are speaking, look around people's faces. Are they listening, or are they having blank stares? Maybe they are already on their computer or phone? If team members are disengaged, they will not spot opportunities to help each other. Note how many (but not who!) people are disengaged.

D. People are late.

To put it in inverse. When you see value in a meeting - you will be on time. When the meeting is a round-robin-style mix of disconnected updates - you might get a few minutes later. What's the difference, right? You can note how often meetings start at the time.

E. Meetings overrun

You schedule stand-up to run for 15 minutes and it takes 23 minutes. It might correlate to the point above. It might also suggest that people are getting deep into details. During stand-up, you should identify problems, but you should not get deep into the weeds. People might also be treating it as a forum for social updates. Team bonding is important, but stand-up serves different purposes.

A way out

Think deeply about your team and the problem you are solving. Is it a high-cadence dynamic environment? Or maybe you are solving problems that do not require daily synchronization? An example of the latter can be more science-oriented teams. It might be disheartening not to find the next step every day.

I can identify two way-outs - fix your stand-up or look for another format.

Fix your stand-up.

You can start with an investigation based on the section "The Warning Signs of a Bad Stand-Up". Clarify the goal of Sprint for each person. Ensure that everyone is committed to that goal. Use stand-up as a tool that shortens the period required to achieve a goal. Read a little about the history of Scrum/stand-up. Look for inspiration in teams that successfully implemented it.

Explore alternatives

Scrum and stand-up meetings are not the silver bullet. They work great for a few and somehow for many teams. Some methods of organizing work are better than no method, but you should observe how your team is doing. The hard thing about processes is that you must tend to them like a home plant. You can leave it for some time. Finally, you must either take care of it or it will wither. This is something that happens often within many teams. Changing meeting formats is that they are two-way doors. If you do not like it, you can always go back.

Parting remarks

Be intentional about your stand-ups. They are a great tool if properly used in the right context. Otherwise, it is a case of the following pre-established trend or tradition without much understanding.

If you have questions regarding meeting and process optimisation - drop me a message. I will be happy to help you.