Read on Twitter
"Ndagira inama saa xx, ishobora kuza gutinda, tuze guhura saa xx" - This sentence surprises me, & I've heard it a couple of times recently in both public & private orgs:
1. I don't know how you plan for a meeting to go overtime, sounds like poor planning, a meeting with no
1. I don't know how you plan for a meeting to go overtime, sounds like poor planning, a meeting with no
clear purpose/expected outcome, kind of reflects badly on your organization way of work
2. That meeting could just be given ample time & end on time. Meaning you can plan for other work or meetings without any distraction or unclear use of day
2. That meeting could just be given ample time & end on time. Meaning you can plan for other work or meetings without any distraction or unclear use of day
But this also brings it back to work culture here, looking through the lens of now an old joke - "This meeting should have been an email". Are 2h+ meetings actually efficient for #Rwanda-n professionals to get things done? This is a genuine question that could be researched
And do we have a hard time writing/responding to emails because we are better at story telling than writing? Or are the email systems complicated to use that people don't bother? (tbh outlook can frustrate you)
It's not a secret that public servants are known to be bad with emails, but it's definitely not rosy in the private sector. But maybe, technology moved faster than work culture. Adjustements to all these new apps isn't straightforward for many, & the constant flow of information
can be overwhelming that people retreat to what they control best, meetings. Being good at emails doesn't necessarily mean being efficient, & long meetings aren't necessarily a waste. I hope a student in HR/sociology/psychology picks this up for research
