“Nothing is as useless as doing efficiently what shouldn’t be done at all”
(Peter Drucker)
A client recently remarked, “I’m in meetings all day, when am I supposed to do my work?”
I asked around me and found that most people spend almost half of their work time in meetings, and one of every three spend more than half. There is a common feeling that there are too many meetings. Sometimes meetings overlap in the same time slot and are often imposed hierarchically without checking availability. Even if all add value, it is difficult to have time to execute what is promised in each meeting. Furthermore, according to people’s perception, not all of them have value.
Memes, t-shirts, and mugs with the phrase “this meeting could have been an email” are the new “keep calm.”
Let us not oversimplify. Not all meetings could have been emails. Email has its own limitations. It is asynchronous, and we are all overloaded with messages, and most of us don’t read all emails or delay reading some until they’re no longer relevant. There are times when people need to sit around a table and cooperate.
But if we feel that when we are in a meeting we are not working, there is clearly a problem. To know if the next meeting is necessary – if we are working – or if this meeting could be an email, it is important to understand what we meet for.
What do we meet for?
Regardless of the format and name we give them, the meetings we hold usually serve one of the following purposes:
- Briefing
- Group learning
- Team building
- Decision making
- Power dynamics
Let’s look at some examples and assess to what extent we are, or should be, working.
Briefings
Briefings are those meetings in which information flows in one direction. An example is a presentation of results without questions, or a communication about the new holiday request app. In most cases, there is significant consensus that this meeting could be an email.
Even a “town hall” can sometimes be a merely informative session, wasting the opportunity that the convening power of senior managers gives us to create a team or collective learning. Do we need the CEO’s expensive time to read us the quarter’s results?
An exception is when the information is so critical and sensitive that it is absolutely necessary for all staff to know it at the same time. For example, if a strategic change is announced which has implications for jobs, customers, and shareholders, such as the acquisition of the company or the closure of a division. The management doesn’t want us to find out from the media, which would be painful, but they also don’t want to risk the media finding out from us, so they make a detailed plan which includes a general information meeting. But these types of communications are very exceptional, and on other occasions the information can flow asynchronously without problems.
Group Learning
When information flows in several directions at the same time, getting enriched from every question and idea, new knowledge is created in the group. Then the meeting is not informative anymore and begins to be group learning.
Group learning meetings may include training meetings, but they are much more than that. They include also all those work sessions in which we reach conclusions and generate new collective knowledge together. Knowledge is not the same as information: it is the combination of information with the skills and abilities to interpret and apply it. In today’s organizations, with leadership based more on cooperation than on hierarchy, creating new collective knowledge is the driving force for change. Creating collective knowledge is a good reason to meet.
A routinary results review meeting in which each person responsible for an area has to present their results can – and should – be an excellent opportunity for group learning if questions and constructive dialogue are encouraged. Unfortunately, this is often not the case, and these periodic meetings are a succession of information deliveries in turns in which one participant gives data while the others, without listening, touch up their own slides. If we have nothing to discuss or learn, do we need to keep that regular appointment?
Team Building Meetings
For group learning to take place, the group needs to have good work dynamics. From being a group, move to a team. The process of creating a team requires committing to a common goal, agreeing on ground rules for collaboration, and supporting the effort with solid mutual trust.
None of this comes automatically; you have to create it and make it grow. No matter how much we use cooperation platforms, we need to share time and space to discover communication styles, adjust roles, and generate cohesion and a common language.
It is good to use team coaching methodologies to accelerate this process. If these are not in the leader’s toolbox, it is often helpful to work with an external facilitator.
No, sitting in a circle to seek complicity, agree on what we can do to improve mutual trust and the way we communicate, and make commitments, could never be an email.
Decision Making
How many times do we call a meeting to make a decision and the only decision we get is to call a second meeting? Group decision making is a difficult art, which sometimes creates frustration due to the lack of a method or known rules. If we want efficient meetings, let us reduce the consumption of emotional energy. This is achieved by being transparent about the decision-making method to be used. There are basically four methods of collective decision making. All four work, and each of them works best in certain circumstances.
1. Democracy
The participants vote, and the decision with the most votes is adopted. It suits our culture, but not all business decisions can be made by this method. Unlike a democratic state, where all power emanates from the people, in a company power is the result of a balance between shareholders, employees, clients, and the society that surrounds us. This balance makes it more complex to determine whose responsibility it is, and it is not always in the hands of a group of employees.
2. Consensus
Points of view are debated until all participants agree on a decision. The difference with democracy is that it is not approved by the majority but rather by unanimity. It may be necessary in decisions that have a dramatic impact on the entire group. For example, when a family council must decide whether to sell the company. But it has two risks: it can consume precious time, and false consensus is often reached (losers accept “out of boredom” but still do not agree or commit).
3. Technical authority
The decision is made by the person who knows the most about the problem to be solved. There are obvious situations in which it is the only method that works – i.e., highly complex technological, legal, or health decisions.
4. Hierarchical authority
The final decision is made by a manager based on the authority derived from their position in the company (not necessarily their technical knowledge). In these cases, the meeting may be merely consultative so that the person responsible can listen to opinions reserving the final decision for him or herself. It is a legitimate model and in certain situations, it is the most practical. This is usually the case in emergencies. But abusing this model creates authoritarian environments where participation is discouraged.
Whichever method is chosen, the decision will be binding on everyone. That is why it is important to enrol those with different opinions into the implementation plan. This will be impossible if they have felt mistreated during the decision process. If we present as consensus what is actually hierarchical authority, or if we switch without warning from a democratic method to one of technical authority because we didn’t like the path the former was taking, participants will feel cheated. On the contrary, if these methods are known and transparent to everyone, our decision-making meetings will be more efficient, and we will reduce frustration.
Power dynamics
A CEO might gather everyone just to say “if we go on this way we will need to fire people”, and the only thing expected of the participants is to be present and nod. What is the goal of such a meeting? Probably creating fear, which strengthens positions of authority and weakens critical voices. This is an example of meeting to consolidate established power relations.
Think now of that short notice department meeting that pretends to be dramatically urgent, which happens to conflict with some activity of general interest previously planned. What is the aim here? Competing for people’s attention and ultimately challenging existing power balance.
The problem with political meetings is that they are rarely transparent. No one says “we are going to meet to negotiate our shares of influence.” If so, they would not be necessarily negative. They would be decision-making meetings. Anything can be discussed if is done within alignment around common company objectives and values. But they are usually disguised under other agendas.
Sometimes power struggles arise during an off-schedule discussion. Imagine that meeting between departments where suddenly the search for solutions is abandoned and groups move to a confrontation between sides fighting for their survival.
They can also be planned as part of the hidden agenda of the meeting. For example, when a manager encourages a debate whose final outcome has already been decided, just to give the appearance that the decision is democratic or to evaluate conflicting behavior. The decision could have been resolved with a respectful “no, thank you” in the first minute… but then we wouldn’t have winners and losers.
Purpose
These examples show that the difference between productive meetings from those that are dispensable is, first of all, their purpose.
There are hundreds of lists of tips circulating on how to run effective meetings. We are not going to add another one here. In any case, before studying how to make the meeting work well, the first thing to ask yourself is, do we really need a meeting? What for?
Perhaps a good acid test is to see if the language of the invitation can be changed.
Instead of saying “let’s have a meeting about this issue,” can we say “let’s work together on this issue”?
If you can’t, this meeting could probably be an email.