The purpose of having meetings seems to have become lost or confused in modern management. As productivity is the focus of our reflections here it should be recognized that one of the most counter-productive activities that permeates the management levels of any company is endlessly attending meetings. In some companies managers establish their worth by the number of meetings that they attend each and every day. Some will brag that they have a meeting at 9 o'clock, then another at 11 o'clock then another at 2 o'clock. They wear their required attendance at these too many meetings like a badge of honor or a reflection of their rank.

This management culture is of course very unproductive but more than that individual managers should be worried about their perceived value to their company. If it can be seen there is a manager who is always in meetings, and mostly absent and never seen running his department, and yet the job is getting done his position may be vulnerable. After all if the job is getting done every day without the hands-on leadership of this manager due to his attendance at meetings why not just eliminate him from the meetings. When eliminated from the meetings it may be possible to eliminate this position from the company as the department has been running without a manager for some time.

Employees and departments develop a routine to handle almost every eventuality. This routine may not be productive and may not be achieving all of the goals of the company but somehow, in the absence of a manager, most departments will do something even if just to look busy. Rudderless and directionless a department will generally try to do its best using common sense, past practices, and available knowledge to get the job done. This department will probably not launch any new initiatives or actions and maybe only maintain basic services but this is a management problem and nor one caused by the employee group. Managers should be managing their departments and not endlessly attending meetings.

It is bewildering why management at every level cannot see how too many meetings stifle progress, are unproductive, and act as a brake to change. Meetings have an insidious way of increasing in number as the performance of the company deteriorates relative to that of competitors. This is absolutely the wrong action that should occur. It can be assumed that in an atmosphere of increased economic pressure layoffs have occurred leaving fewer people to perform the existing workload and perhaps to perform additional duties in addition to their old responsibilities. Consequently there should be fewer meetings, not additional meetings, to allow time to implement change.

Another counter-productive use of meetings is to have many partial meetings concerning one subject or problem. A company trying to redesign itself to become a first class company, and hopefully to win a National Productivity Award, cannot focus on 100 different things. A few actions must be defined and the resources concentrated on achieving results in these selected areas. Then time and patience must be given to allow for the desired changes to take hold. Regardless of the problems it does take some time to implement change, achieve results, and redesign a company. Management can bellow for instant change but better results will be achieved without yelling and screaming. Establish a program that embraces change at a demanding pace but one that can be achieved and therefore the change actually becomes implemented.

Has the reason for holding meetings escaped us all? Meetings should be used to communicate and discuss actions that the company or department is going to implement to achieve specific goals. As already stated the list of goals and targets should be small, well defined, focused on the problem, and within the power of the assembled group to accomplish. All meetings should have an agenda and minutes or the effectiveness will be diminished.

Of all the abuses and wasting of time that can occur in meetings there are two that stand out. The first is the lack of adherence to the agenda of the called meeting. It is common sense that any meeting should only address and discuss the topics for which that meeting arranged. The meeting attendees have come prepared to review this defined material and are generally not prepared for irrelevant extraneous discussions. The other refers to disorganized managers who come to meetings 10 minutes late resulting in other employees or managers sitting and waiting for one person. This unacceptable conduct may be as a result of just coming from another meeting but the actual reason is not important. If a group of people is caused to do nothing, while waiting for one attendee, it must be asked how productive can that be? Given the choice between wasting time or money always-waste money. More money can be made but not more time.

A meeting can be said to have value if, following the meeting, actions are taken to implement the changes or implement the strategy discussed at the meeting. To allow this to occur the managers or employees must have some time to implement the discussed changes and allow some time for the changes to achieve results. It is senseless and unreasonable to expect instant results to a complex problem, or successfully instill a change of direction in a few days. Focus on a few goals, monitor and encourage the progress, and allow time to work the problem. Attending frequent meetings will not allow the time to work the problem and implement solutions.

Another great meeting time waster is the many little meetings that precede a larger meeting. These mini meetings should be shut down with the strong admonition that “the meeting is at 2 o'clock, not now, and the topics will be discussed then”.

Conducting meetings and using them to manage a company is a lost art and there needs to be more strength in the leadership of meetings to keep them short and on topic. Meetings should be run with discipline so as to not waste the time of the attendees. If a meeting meanders off topic or if any meeting participant becomes too verbose the meeting chairman should firmly take charge and state "that topic is not on the agenda and will be discussed at the appropriate time" or "you are finished" to bring closure.

Management at all levels organize meetings for valuable reasons. A chairman of the meeting should be recognized and the chairman should control the meeting not have the meeting control the chairman. Fewer, focused meetings, allowing time for work to be performed to rectify problems will prove much more effective and productive than too many meetings consuming all of the participant's time.



back to commentary