People often complain about meetings being a waste of time, so a while back I decided to do some research.
I handed out a short questionnaire to people in my workshops and after several months I had 670 responses. They were very keen to participate. The results were dismal.
On average, respondents said they spent 37% of their work time in meetings. More than half of these meetings (52%) did not help them do their job.
Of these meetings, 47% were unstructured, meaning there was no clearly stated purpose or agenda.
The research showed that 80% of respondents “blanked out” sometimes or regularly for “significant periods of time”. Only 35% of respondents said they planned for meetings or followed through with actions.
Meetings are a huge part of our working life and yet we don’t see them as integral to our core accountabilities. Either that or an ‘alright-on-the-night’ faith persists. Or meetings are generally so poor that we bet confidently on not being held to account for not doing our homework
Dave Stitt, DSA Building Performance
The results suggest that these people, who are quite senior and have responsible jobs, spend the equivalent of two days a week in meetings. And since only half of these meetings help them do their jobs, they are effectively wasting a full day a week – on dumb meetings.
It’s just a snapshot, but from the avid way in which people filled out the questionnaire and told their stories, it was clear it had struck a chord.
“Typical meeting: we have purpose/agenda but regularly sabotaged by specific individuals,” said one respondent.
Another wrote: “I adopted a belligerent approach to avoid derailment by stakeholders who were not really there for any valid reason.”
“No agenda, covering same ground, feeling of having been here before,” penned a third.
Analysing the responses, I identified four basic problems with bad meetings: poor structure, poor preparation, terrible behaviour and no follow-through.
Poor structure
When it comes to meetings, it seems we settle for a free-for-all in the vague hope that something useful will drop out of the bottom.
If there is an agenda, it is often dashed off and printed in haste seconds before the meeting with poorly defined items and no allotted time limits. The result is that the discussion drifts or becomes a contest of competing agendas.
Shoddiness of structure includes who should and should not be there, and for how long.
“I was asked to report on a specific project, which took five minutes,” wrote one respondent. “The rest of the 2.5 hours was wasted.”
Conversely, the people who need to be there because they have crucial information or authority are not there, though the meeting usually proceeds anyway. These ‘dead-on-arrival’ meetings are particularly demoralising.
Poor preparation
One respondent said: “Information and agenda sent to the client seven days prior. Client did not read and was totally unprepared, therefore the meeting was non-productive and no conclusions were drawn.”
This is a very common complaint, and I find it really weird. Meetings are a huge part of our working life and yet we don't see them as integral to our core accountabilities.
Either that, or an 'alright-on-the-night' faith persists. Or, and this is probably closest to the mark, meetings are generally so poor that we bet confidently on not being held to account for not doing our homework.
Terrible behaviour
“Site project meeting. 25 attendees. Attendees come and go. Constant phone use. More than one conversation constantly,” said one respondent.
People are not really there. They are distracted and they distract others. It shows that they see themselves not as active participants in an important activity but rather as passive ‘attendees’ to a ‘gathering’. Passengers, in other words.
No follow-through
Meetings often make no difference because, in cases where a decision is made or an action proposed, responsibility is not assigned.
Or if responsibility is assigned, it’s not recorded. And if it is recorded, the minutes never get distributed. And even if they do, they're late – and anyway it’s considered somehow indelicate to “bring all that up again”.
I look at meetings as a gift, a huge opportunity. They bring individuals together for a brief moment to engage, learn, plan and make promises. After a good meeting, things should be different. Good meetings lead to concerted, effective effort
Dave Stitt, DSA Building Performance
As a result, ideas, decisions and solutions tend to get lost in the mists of time, or they are susceptible to competing interpretations.
I look at meetings as a gift, a huge opportunity. They bring individuals together for a brief moment to engage, learn, plan and make promises. After a good meeting, things should be different. Good meetings lead to concerted, effective effort.
Dictatorships know the power of good meetings – freedom of assembly – and will stop at nothing to prevent them happening among the subjugated population.
So, how can we make meetings matter? Here are five tips.
- Design the meeting properly: Somebody is responsible for any meeting even if it has become a ritual. This is “the convenor”. They must articulate the objective of the meeting. Avoid woolly phrases like “to share information”. With a good, clear objective the convenor can see who needs to be in the meeting, how they need to prepare and how long the meeting should take. That's the basis of the agenda. Each agenda point must be well defined and have a time limit. The agenda is distributed well beforehand. The meeting has a start time, and it starts on time, whether everyone’s there or not. The finish time is strictly observed.
- Lead it well: The chair (they don’t have to be the convenor) guides the meeting from start to finish, on time, through each point, with results. Really good chairs keep everyone on the topic and disallow distractions and meetings-within-meetings. They guide discussions to tease out good ideas, insights and action points. They ensure everyone that needs to contribute does so. They keep the discussion relevant by preventing the dive into detail. And they ensure accurate recording of decisions and actions.
- Prepare for it: Convenors need to ensure that the right people are there and the wrong people are not. Equipment is there and working. Those given homework are supported and checked up on. Material necessary to achieve the objective is identified and distributed prior to the meeting, and participants clear the time they need to read and reflect on this beforehand. Everyone arrives ready for action.
- Behave: Respect the value of the meeting and of the other participants by showing up on time and being attentive. The chair should ask people to switch off devices. Listen carefully and contribute constructively.
- Follow through, right away: Name individuals responsible for the actions agreed on – one person, ultimately, to avoid buck-passing. The chair should help them define what successful completion would look like. Negotiate a challenging deadline and a report-back date. Write it all down in the minutes, and distribute the minutes that very day. Next meeting, no fudging or dodging allowed.
Dave Stitt FCIOB is a chartered civil engineer, and professional certified coach at DSA Building Performance.
