Minimize Meetings, Maximize Motivation

Or, "How I Learned to Relate to My Employees Better - Part 2."

I won't even bury the lead on this one: you're having too many meetings. Too many that are poorly-run, too many that could just as easily be e-mails, too many that flatly don't need to happen.

Too many. So stop it--now.

"But, but, but," I hear you saying, "meetings are good!"

Here's the shocking truth: no they aren't. Nobody likes having them. And anybody that pretends otherwise is being honest.

The (Non) Necessity of Meetings

I'll start, as I so often do, with an anecdote from my past.

Once, when I found myself in an environment that was addicted to meetings, I realized I was spending too much time in meetings and not enough time working. And somewhere along the way, I realized just how few of those meetings actually added value equal to the work time I was giving up. (No joke, the ratio was about 10 to 1 in favor of wasted time.)

And one day, I decided to try something, just to see if my gut was right. So this is what I did--late on a Sunday night, I looked to see how many meetings I had lined up for the week. And then I deleted them.

Every. Single. One. No matter who set it up or what it was allegedly about, they were all gone.

And then, when I went in on Monday morning, I went to my desk, got busy with my job, and stayed there.

Say what you will about my approach (and I can just hear people crowing "the AUDACITY"), but the objective was simple: of the eighteen meetings I'd zapped, how many times would people even notice I wasn't there? And of those, how many would be for a concrete reason?

The answer: people only noticed I was missing twice. And of those, neither had a concrete reason for wanting me there. The excuse I got was essentially "because?" (with a question mark after it).

That was the single most productive week I'd had at that job up to that point.

The next week, when senior management realized I'd basically skipped out on that many consecutive meetings, I got called into the principal's office--where I promptly said if I had it to do over again I'd do the same thing, and I told them exactly why. Not only had I finished up a couple of products faster than expected, but the extra uninterrupted work time let me do a better job of it. "What sense does it make," I said, "for me to sit in meetings that go nowhere when THIS is the alternative?"

"What if everyone decides to do what you did?" was the response.

I shrugged. "I hope they do," I said bluntly. "Maybe once people realize how much time all these meetings are eating up, we can all start being productive." (And to this day I stand by that.)

I wasn't very popular with senior management for a while after that. But to their credit, this did touch off a series of conversations, and when the dust settled there were strict guidelines in place when it came to meetings. I watched an office full of people that were bored and disengaged most of the time turn into an engaged, productive, and dare I say efficient workforce almost overnight. The icing on the cake was that we were able to identify some people who weren't puling their weight, and solve those problems too.

Now ask yourself: is improved productivity and employee engagement good for your business?

The Top Hidden Cost of Meetings: Wasted Time

What I've slowly come to realize over the years is that far from being the useful platforms they were envisioned to be, a good chunk of work meetings serve no actual purpose. More importantly, they come with a cost--a steep one.

Many times, people have said to me, "Well I just want to have a brief meetings, shouldn't take but 30 minutes"--thinking that we'll only lose 30 minutes of work time. What these well-meaning people often fail to realize is that work doesn't continue up until the meeting start time; it actually tends to stop maybe 15 minutes before (if not more), and doesn't usually start until about the same amount of time afterwards. It's different for everyone--some people can cognitively shift faster than that, but a lot of us actually take longer to get "in the zone" with what we're doing. So, a "brief" 30-minute meeting can actually cost double that in terms of time. Not only are you not doing anything for the whole time you're sitting in a meeting, but you're also taking time away from someone's actual job.

But there's more--what if someone comes to work at 7:30, only for there to be a meeting at 8:15? That's only forty-five minutes. What are the odds, I wonder, that the unfortunate meeting attendee will start any complicated or in-depth tasks in that situation? Or will they simply coast until the meeting starts?

The same thing happens at the other end of the day--if someone is working diligently, only for there to be a 3PM meeting that lasts an hour, how productive do you think they're going to be between 4PM and 5PM?

I think you're starting to see the problem.

And it just gets worse when you have multiple meetings in one day, especially if any of them are back-to-back.

The Second Hidden Cost of Meetings: Engagement

But wait, there's more. The preceding paragraph just describes meetings in general and their impact as a whole. I didn't delve into the added costs of what happens when "typical meeting problems" arise. (And if you thought the price was high just for meetings in general, this is going to make your head spin.)

So what are "typical meeting problems?" I'm glad you asked!

Typical Meeting Problems

In my experience, there are quite a few of these to watch for, but there are a couple of major ones. In no particular order:

• Meetings that don't need to be meetings
• Meetings that are poorly run
• Meetings you don't need to attend
• Meetings with no agendas
• Meetings with rabbit holes
• Meetings that don't need to happen at all

The sad truth is, a lot of these problems are the result of people getting addicted to meetings, and forgetting that there are other ways to get things done. Or, worse, people call meetings just to call meetings. In a couple of instances, I've seen this trick used by managers who didn't have enough to do, as a way to justify their paychecks; "Look! I had a meeting! Look at me being productive!"

Yeah...not so much.

So let's talk some specifics (and I'll try to keep these sections brief). What are some warning signs, and what do you do when you see it happening?

Meetings that Don't Need to be Meetings

This is one of the biggest offenders I've run across in my day. Many, many meetings that I've attended over the years could've just as easily been e-mails. Think: how many times have you gone to a meeting, where a single person stood up and talked for an hour, either not stopping for questions or comments at all, or only doing so at the end, by which time most people just wanted to get out of the room?

Meetings whose sole purpose is to disseminate information can just as easily be e-mails. Instead of dragging people out of what they're doing (the hidden cost of which I've already discussed), when you have information or an update to share, send it via e-mail. This does two things: lets people stay in-depth in what they're doing, and lets them review the information you put out when it's convenient for them, and provides it in a way that lets them re-read and digest at their own pace.

If you're an organizer: Only call meetings to put out information if there's an emergency. Let me repeat: only call meetings to put out information if there's an emergency. Routine information doesn't justify disrupting anyone's day.

If you're an attendee: Watch for this type of meeting to appear on your calendar. When it pops up, decline it, and in your message to the organizer ask if the critical points will get sent out via e-mail afterwards. (That should happen anyway but you'd be surprised how infrequently people actually do it.) If you're particularly courageous (I've done this), ask if--instead of a meeting--can the organizer send an overview of points, and trim the meeting time by half to focus on discussion?

Meetings that are Poorly Run

Ask yourself: how many times have you been in a meeting where some people didn't speak at all, and other seemed to monologue interminably like movie villains explaining a diabolical plot? How many times have you been to an allegedly 30-minute meeting that was passing a full hour with no signs of slowing down? How many times did you get the sense that nobody (including the organizer) had any idea why the meeting was called?

If you said "one or more" to any of these (and anybody who says "zero" is lying), congratulations: you've been to a poorly-run meeting.

If you're an organizer: don't let people monologue. (This goes hand-in-hand with the issue of rabbit holes.) You'd be surprised how many people will hog the floor in order to get attention and appear detail-oriented. When they start doing it, ask them to come see you about their issue offline. Legitimate issues are one thing, and you should address them--but if it's just pointless trivia or minutiae, be upfront and put a stop to it. The impact of this to others is that they tune out and wonder when the discussion will get back on topic, and once people tune out, it's hard to get them to tune back in.

If you're an attendee: if you get dragged into meetings with that one person that always monologues, approach your boss or the meeting organizer, and let them know that you have a hard time staying attentive when the discussion goes down a particular rabbit hole, and ask them to keep things on track. This may or may not do any good, but at least it identifies the problem.

Meetings You Didn't Need to Attend

You know this one: you receive a meeting invite, and when you look at it you see more meeting attendees than you can count (or else you stop counting when you reach the end of the first line). You go, you sit, you listen--and then when it's over, you wonder why you were there in the first place.

I already described my approach to tackling this problem--but that was a calculated risk and comes with an implied "don't try this at home" label.

If you're an organizer: carefully scrutinize the list of invitees for every meeting you put together. Ask yourself if everyone on the list is critical to what you're going to try to accomplish. And when you inevitably come back with "yes, that's why they're on the list to begin with," ask yourself a different question: "can I still get what I need if this person doesn't come?" If you answer "yes" to the second question for anyone, leave them off the invite.

If you're an attendee: if you notice a string of meetings where you sit and listen and get no value out of it, start openly declining them when they come in, and in the note to the organizer, say that you attended a similar meeting previously but that you didn't feel it was a constructive use of your time. Nine times out of ten, they'll come back to you and insist you come anyway just on principle, but stand firm--ask to know exactly what you're supposed to be getting out of it, and then if you still don't feel it's worthwhile, repeat your declination.

(Pro tip: saying "no" is a very difficult skill to learn, but it's crucial for situations like this. When you say no to something, you must stand resolute, otherwise your "no" will be worthless. People will push back thinking that it's all they have to do to get you to change your mind.)

Meetings with No Agendas

This tends to go hand-in-hand with meetings that are poorly run. A meeting invite comes in, often with a vague-sounding title...and no line items about what the topics are, what the purpose is, who's going to present, nothing. Just a blind request for time, which for all you know might be spent reading from the dictionary.

Should you attend? Will you get any value out of it? Who knows--clearly not the person that organized it.

I'll say this up front: if a meeting invite comes into my inbox without an agenda, it gets declined and deleted, period, no exceptions. My experience has been that more often than not, meetings with no agendas tend to get called by disorganized people and don't wind up being good uses of anyone's time.

If you're an organizer: don't ever send out a meeting invite without some sort of agenda. Period. No exceptions. If you're asking people to give up their work time, you need to justify that request. Providing an agenda helps people assess whether they need to be there at all, and if so, helps them prepare. (I can hear the protests now: "But I'm the boss, they need to be where I tell them to be!"--need I remind you about why the Great Resignation of 2021 is happening?)

If you're an attendee: you can take my approach if you want, but a less strict approach might be to request an agenda where one isn't provided, on the basis that you have a lot on your plate already and need to prioritize your time. Chances are you'll get pushback, but you need to stand firm--remember, just because someone called a meeting, it doesn't obligate you to be there. It's harder to do this with bosses, but it can be done, and like any other skill it takes practice.

Meetings with Rabbit Holes

I mentioned earlier that people monologuing is a particularly egregious problem, but it's an issue that deserves its own section, so here we are.

We all have them on our team--that one person you dread being in a meeting with. They raise a seemingly endless stream of trivia at meetings, things that nobody except them could possibly care about. Yet nobody stops them. They go on, and on, and on...kind of like that battery mascot we all know and love.

Do they really care about all these particular details? Or are they just trying to show off for the boss that they're so detail-oriented?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter--it's not an issue that affects the whole team, and thus, isn't something you need to know about. This is one of those things that causes meetings to run long.

If you're an organizer: I can't say this enough, but when you see this, put a stop to it. The alternative is that people will tune out and stop paying attention, at which point you've "lost the room" and will have a really hard time keeping people focused, or getting their attention back when you're finally ready to move on. Chances are, the people that monologue like this really are trying to make themselves look more detail-oriented than they really are (ask yourself: "Do I see this from them on a daily basis, or is this a show for my benefit?"), at the expense of others who may have real issues to raise. If you find yourself having an extended dialogue with someone, table the issue and move on, and encourage them to circle back with you offline. And then emphasize that what you're looking for are discussion points for the whole group.

If you're an attendee: this kind of dovetails with other pointers I've had on this list, but you need to speak up. Maybe not in the moment, but if this happens in meetings with your boss, pull them aside and tell them straight-up: "I had a point I really wanted to bring up, but we ran out of time because we went down so many other rabbit holes before my turn came up." More broadly, you can also use this as an opportunity to point out that you're losing valuable work time by sitting idle while someone else monologues about their rabbit holes, and how that has a price in lost productivity.

And all of these examples bring us to The Big One:

Meetings That Don't Need to Happen At All

A sad truth is, a lot of meetings don't need to happen at all. I've said before, people call meetings almost as a knee-jerk response, without asking if the information can just be sent via e-mail. They invite people without stopping to think who actually needs to attend.

The excuses I hear are plentiful. "Keeping everyone informed" is a favorite (send out via e-mail). "It's to get everyone's updates" is another (have them send via e-mail). The list goes on and on, but I think the two top reasons why this happens are:

• Managers who don't have enough to do (and/or don't respect their teams' time) are trying to justify their paychecks by looking like they're doing something, and
• People are simply addicted to meetings and don't know any other way to get things done.

One of the biggest offenders in the bunch is the "check in" meeting. Check-ins are the very definition of things that can be handled via e-mail--send a question, get an answer. I've read any number of articles this year alone that talk about how "check in" meetings have multiplied out of control, and one article put it bluntly in its headline: "Too many check-ins are killing productivity."

It's all well and good to want to have open lines of communication, of course--but you'd be surprised at just how thin the line is between "useful" and "disruptive." Once you cross the line into "disruptive," it's really hard to get people to see you as anything else.

Take Back Control of Your Calendar

Hopefully, after reading this, you've got some ideas about how to take back control of your calendar. Ultimately, this is a problem that takes action on all sides to solve. Employees have to communicate clearly and effectively when they feel like meetings aren't serving any real purpose, and business leaders need to listen and accept that yes, meeting overload is a real problem, and do their part to help solve it.

Yes, there are times when meetings are the right answer. Yes, there are times when it's good to get people together face to face away from the everyday rigors of the job. But when you do, it needs to be with a purpose and in a way that adds value. Simply saying "I want to have a meeting" isn't a good enough reason.

That's what I think--what do you say about all this?