Corporate term: “Meeting Cuckoo”

Posted on by Mark Myers Leave a comment

Definition:

A “Meeting Cuckoo” is a manager or project lead who, upon being invited to another team’s meeting, appropriates the discussion to prioritize or promote their own project’s agenda.

Explanation:

Companies often encourage cross-functional collaboration for transparency, efficiency, and resource sharing. In this context, managers or project leads may be invited to attend meetings they are not directly involved with, especially if a topic under discussion overlaps with their own project. Ideally, such invitations serve to streamline communication and ensure all stakeholders have a clear understanding of progress, challenges, and resource allocations.

However, when a Meeting Cuckoo joins a meeting, they will derail its original purpose by redirecting attention to their own priorities. They might use the meeting’s time, resources, and focus to further their projects objectives, rather than contributing value to the host project. This behaviour can cause frustration, lead to conflicts, and dilute the primary agenda of the meeting.

To avoid such issues, a recommended best practice is to make sure they raise items only related to their project only after the main agenda items have been addressed. For instance a well behaved Cuckoo could say, “To save me chasing you separately, could I ask for an update on “Project X” once we’ve covered the main agenda?” This approach ensures that the meeting’s original objectives are preserved while still acknowledging and addressing the visitor’s needs.

Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.

 

Partial data migrations or the danger of the cottage database

Posted on by Mark Myers Leave a comment

 

I’ve dealt with multiple data migrations over the years, moving from one system to another can be surprisingly convoluted, even when you think the process should be straightforward.

One recurring challenge is the temptation to migrate only the “current” or “relevant” data into the new system while stashing historical data somewhere else, like an archive or backup database. At first, this seems like an easy solution.

You move just enough data to get the new system running, and you tell everyone, “If you need to analyze or report on the old data, we have it stored over there.”

But sooner or later, someone needs that historical data for analytics, reporting, or to merge with new information. Because it’s sitting in a separate place, you end up with a small, “cottage industry” of sorts, people who specialise in pulling and analysing the legacy data.

This cottage industry might start small, but over time, new demands arise:

More Reports: Someone wants to combine current and historical data for deeper insights.

Third-Party Integrations: The old data needs to connect with external systems or tools for advanced analytics.

Ongoing Maintenance: The “temporary” archive starts receiving updates, patches, or new data sources.

Before you know it, this cottage database becomes a permanent fixture, growing more complex with each update. It morphs into its own mini data lake, complete with specialised scripts and workflows.

As soon as you try to integrate it back into the main platform or move to yet another new system, you face a new migration project, often bigger and messier than the first one.

This all costs you extra money and extra issues such as:

Hidden Complexity: By storing historical data separately, you create a silo that quickly becomes complicated to manage.

Inconsistent Reporting: Different teams might use different data sources, leading to confusion and inconsistent insights.

Maintaining multiple databases (and the specialised knowledge around them) can be expensive in both time and money.

Lessons Learned

Plan for the Long Haul: Even if historical data seems irrelevant now, plan for a future where you might need to integrate it easily.

Evaluate All Options: Sometimes, a phased or partial migration can work, but do so with a clear strategy for eventually merging the old data.

Streamline Reporting: Encourage a single source of truth to avoid duplicate effort and maintain consistent reporting across the organisation.

Don’t Underestimate Governance: Good data governance from the start saves countless hours and headaches later.

Round up

A partial data migration might seem like a quick fix, but it often creates a “cottage database” problem that can spiral out of control.

By anticipating the need for historical data, and planning an approach that brings everything into one coherent system, you’ll save yourself (and your team) a lot of frustration down the road. Data migrations are rarely simple, but with the right foresight, you can avoid building a hodgepodge of separate repositories that become a long-term drag on your organisation.

Why People Tune Out in Meetings (And What to Do About It)

Posted on by Mark Myers Leave a comment

 

We’ve all witnessed (or been) that person in a meeting who suddenly snaps back into reality when asked a question and says, “Sorry, could you repeat that?” It can be a little embarrassing,

but it’s more than just a momentary lapse in attention. In fact, it often reveals deeper problems in how we structure our time and our meetings.

I have found that there are a bunch of reasons why people tune out in meetings and how you can help fix that

1. They’re Too Busy

Sometimes, people use meeting time to catch up on “real work” because it’s the only break they get from constant interruptions.

They end up splitting their attention, doing neither their work nor participating in the meeting effectively. As Ron Swanson famously said, “Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”

How to Fix It:

Is the meeting a necessity? Before scheduling a meeting, ask if it’s truly needed or if an email or chat message would suffice.

Set Clear Agendas: Let everyone know exactly what you’ll cover so participants can decide for themselves if their attendance is essential.

Create Focus Time: Encourage blocks of uninterrupted time in people’s schedules so they can tackle key tasks without needing to multitask during meetings.

2. There Are Too Many Meetings

In many organisations, calendars are jam-packed with back-to-back calls. Important stakeholders or subject matter experts get invited to every discussion, leaving them no room for actual work.

When people have too many meetings, they’re forced to do work at the edges—sometimes during meetings themselves.

How to Fix It:

Be Selective with Invites: Only invite those who genuinely need to be part of the discussion.

Combine or Shorten Meetings: If a meeting’s purpose overlaps with another, consider combining them or shortening its length.

Empower ‘No’: Create a culture where it’s acceptable to decline meetings when you’re not truly needed.

3. The Meetings Are Boring

Meetings that drone on about status updates or walk through slide after slide can cause people to tune out. If half the attendees aren’t actively involved, the meeting is probably unnecessary or poorly structured.

How to Fix It:

Keep It Interactive: Use formats that encourage participation, such as discussions or needing decisions

Stick to the Point: Share status updates or documents ahead of time so meeting time can focus on decision-making or problem-solving.

Ensure Relevance: If someone’s input isn’t required, let them skip the meeting. Their time will be better spent elsewhere.

In Summary

When someone stops paying attention in a meeting, it’s often a sign that the meeting—or the way work is organised, isn’t serving its purpose. Instead of assuming the individual is lazy or unprofessional, consider looking elsewhere for the cause.

Corporate perspectives

Posted on by Mark Myers Leave a comment

 

Have you ever felt like your workmates in other departments just don’t get how important your work is? Chances are, they feel the same way about their work and you. In many organizations, especially large ones, teams tend to break down into three main perspectives, each with its own priorities and pressures. Let’s call them:

  • The Project Perspective (Mr. Project)
  • The Service Perspective (Mr. and Mrs. Service)
  • The Audit Perspective (Mrs. Audit)

They’re all trying to do their jobs. Yet because they don’t see eye to eye on how to accomplish their goals, they often clash. To illustrate this, let’s head to the “IT Coffee Shop.”

The IT Coffee Shop Analogy

1. Mr. Project and the Sweet Coffee
Imagine you’re in a coffee shop. Mr. Project rushes in with a special order: a super sweet, strong coffee needed in 1 minute. He spots an entire stack of sugar packets, perfect! If he dumps them all in, he’ll get exactly what the order needs and be out of the door on time.
But just as he’s about to pour them in, Mr. and Mrs. Service step in and stop him.

2. Mr. and Mrs. Service: Balancing Supplies
Mr. and Mrs. Service object to Mr. Project taking all the sugar. it is all they have left for the day, and other customers will need some too. Their job is to keep the coffee shop running smoothly for everyone, not just this single urgent request.
But Mr. Project sees it differently: he has a deadline, a client to keep happy, and isn’t it the coffee shop’s job to ensure everything he needs is available? He has paid his money for coffee after all, hasn’t he?

3. Mrs. Audit: The Enforcer
Suddenly, Mrs. Audit arrives with new regulations: “No more than two packets of sugar per coffee cup, or the shop risks getting shut down!” Now, nobody is happy, but Mrs. Audit is thinking of all coffee shops and is trying to deal with the sugar crime wave that is affecting the country:

  • Mr. Project can’t get all the sugar he wants. and now faces an angry client who was promised their sweet coffee.
  • Mr. and Mrs. Service have even more hoops to jump through and work overhead just to hand out sugar.
  • Mrs. Audit is just doing her job to ensure compliance but is now the “bad guy” from everyone else’s perspective.

Everyone’s intentions are good, but they’re completely at odds. Multiply this dynamic across dozens of simultaneous projects, and you can imagine the chaos.

So, how does this analogy translate into the real corporate world?

Project Delivery (Mr. Project)

  • Focused on a clear start and end (Point A to Point B).
  • Driven by tight deadlines and specific deliverables.
  • Success = completing the project on time and on budget, no matter what.

Service & Support (Mr. and Mrs. Service)

  • Responsible for ongoing operations (networks, servers, maintenance, the “day-to-day”).
  • Must keep systems stable for everyone, not just one project.
  • Success = minimal downtime, efficient resource use, balanced workload.

Audit & Security (Mrs. Audit)

  • Charged with ensuring compliance, governance, and protection.
  • Enforces rules and standards, even if it slows down a project or adds overhead to day-to-day services.
  • Success = avoiding breaches, fines, or shutdowns.

Each group sees its own success metrics as paramount. And that’s where most conflicts spring up.

The Escalation Trap

When someone escalates an issue (and let’s face it, everyone does exactly that), “This is now top priority!” they assume the receiving team can just drop everything and do more.

That might work if they have spare capacity. But in reality, most teams are already stretched thin. If you ask someone working at 100% to give 110%, you’re pushing them into overload.

A more practical approach:

  • Ask What Can Be Deprioritized – If you genuinely need more help, figure out what tasks can be dropped or delayed.
  • Communicate Clearly – Explain why this new priority matters and the benefits it will bring.
  • Negotiate Responsibly – Don’t treat every need like an emergency. Instead, coordinate so all parties know where to flex.

Why This Matters

Projects hit bottlenecks, services get overwhelmed, and audits seem meddlesome when we’re not seeing the bigger picture. Recognizing each perspective, and acknowledging its validity, helps us collaborate better. Whether you’re Mr. Project, Mrs. Service, or Mrs. Audit, here’s the takeaway:

  • Understand each team’s constraints and goals.
  • Communicate openly about priorities and resources.
  • Be willing to compromise and shift priorities, rather than just piling on more “urgent” tasks.
  • Our imaginary coffee shop is a silly example of what happens when departments can’t see beyond their own needs. By stepping back and sharing the sugar more strategically (so to speak),

If we understand each other’s perspectives, we can deliver better results that work for all departments.

Corporate term: “Privileging the hypothesis”

Posted on by Mark Myers Leave a comment

Definition:

Privileging the hypothesis is a situation in which a person arrives at a problem meeting with a favored solution or explanation already in mind, and continues to defend it even when presented with new facts or alternative explanations.

Explanation:

This bias frequently arises among individuals with considerable expertise, such as senior technical subject matter experts, who may approach a complex problem with a “solution-in-hand.”
If their familiarity with the domain is thorough and they indeed possess all necessary facts, their proposed solution may very well be correct. However, if they overlook critical information or fail to reconsider other approaches, they risk dismissing better solutions without proper evaluation.
This mindset parallels the saying, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” highlighting how a rigid or singular problem solving perspective can hamper genuine innovation, and objective analysis.

Disclaimer: As always these posts are not aimed at anyone client or employer and are just my personal observations over a lifetime of dealing with both management and frontline associates.