The Problem with Meetings
Now that people are finally coming back together to gather in-person, we find ourselves facing an intriguing question: what do meetings look like now? Let’s take a minute to recall what many meetings looked like before the pandemic.
A meeting was often blocked out regularly on the calendar. The leader/facilitator would think of agenda items beforehand and plug them in. On the day of the meeting, people would interrupt their other work and travel to get there, and a few would always straggle in late while everyone waited for their arrival. Most agenda items would only be relevant to a portion of the participants, so others would pass the time checking their email on their phones under the table. Some people never spoke up. Others talked a lot, and most weeks they were the same ones. After the meeting the people who hadn’t spoken would have back-channel conversations that might or might not make it back to the leader or the rest of the group. Then, the following week, we’d do it all again.
For meetings like this, you have to ask: was the juice worth the squeeze? There are many reasons to interrupt people’s workday and ask them to come together. Here are some bad ones.
Because it’s on the schedule. It should go without saying that this isn’t a sufficient reason, but once a meeting makes it on the weekly or monthly schedule, it takes on a life of its own.
Because we always end up filling the agenda. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does a meeting agenda. Filling the time is easy. Filling it with purpose is not.
To impart information. Much of the information we disseminate in meetings could be distributed more clearly, thoroughly and efficiently by email or newsletter. Of course, some information requires discussion, but that discussion is usually more thoughtful and productive when people have had a chance to digest the information in advance.
To get feedback. One of the problems with group feedback is that the earliest or most forceful opinions dominate and skew the discussion. Group-think can hide the true range and diversity of ideas. Some feedback, especially to get a first impression or to gauge the degree of buy-in, is better gathered individually.
To hold people accountable. Attendance is not the same as accountability. In fact, showing up for meetings can hide the fact that people aren’t really showing up for the actual work.
So if those are bad reasons to have a meeting, what are some good ones? Simply put, people should only do in groups what they can’t do well alone. Meetings can be used to nurture relationships and create social capital. They can build a team identity and norms of communication and behavior. They can be a setting to acknowledge the deep emotions that come with change and loss, or to celebrate successes and gains. And they can help us leverage collective wisdom and experience when designing a new process, or solving a thorny problem.
So how could we redesign meetings so they could do what they’re really good at? What if no meetings repeated on a regular cadence, but were only scheduled for a clear purpose on an as-needed basis? What if we invited only the people who really needed to be there, and made sure that everyone’s voice was heard? How could we ensure that every participant understood how to prepare and what they were expected to bring to the table? What if the responsibility for agenda-setting and facilitation was more widely shared? How many meetings could we replace with a newsletter or a 1:1 conversation? And what would happen if we made a rule that any person could decline a meeting, walk out of one, or even move to end one if they believed it was a poor use of their time? Imagine what we’d learn about the true value of the meetings on our calendar.
All of this may sound pretty radical, but we have a unique opportunity right now to reimagine how and when we meet. With a little courage and ingenuity, we can make meetings more meaningful, more effective and more enjoyable. Or we can just stay quiet and check our email under the table. The choice is ours.
