#MiPDV – Meetings Are For Action

Have you thought about how many meetings you attend in a week or in a month? If you’re like many people I know or have worked with, they often say they attend too many meetings.?

Now think about the content of the meetings: how many meetings did you attend where you had nothing to contribute? Or where the outcome of the meeting was to have another meeting??

Of course, that doesn’t include the “meetings after the meeting” where small groups often get together to commiserate about how the meeting was a waste of time … how “nothing got done”.?

Sound familiar??

Worse, wasted time is wasted money.?

In one job, we decided to start calculating the cost of meetings – a lower-level executive can easily cost the company $100/hour or more, a mid-level executive $250/hour, and senior executives often are $500/hour and more. Many of the meetings cost the company over $5,000/hour, not counting the “meetings after the meeting”.?

Unfortunately, the situation seems to be pervasive, spanning organizations large and small.?

Over my career, I’ve attended far too many meetings that were a complete waste of everyone’s time. Meetings where I was asked to attend by a member of my management team, “just in case”. Meetings where only one or two people spoke, while the remaining people – frequently one or two dozen – stayed on mute because they had nothing to contribute.?

How many meetings have you attended where you witnessed attendees remaining off camera and on mute because they wanted to remain hidden from any actions that might be assigned??

I contrast these situations with a team I had the good fortune to lead, where every meeting held (even when I was not invited) had a specific purpose. The team bonded incredibly well, and each person, regardless of their level in the company, contributed to every meeting – they worked as a team to build action plans and execute them. This team was so effective that they adopted the moniker of the “GSD Team” for Get (ahem) Stuff Done Team.?

Because of the difference in these situations – meetings which were a waste of time compared to meetings which delivered results, I came to a conclusion that was controversial in the company:?

Meetings are for action.?

Not to provide updates.?

Not for exposure.?

Not to plan, unless the planning launches an action.?

Action.

?

So what did I do??

I stopped scheduling meetings unless I knew that we could create and assign actions to the participants. Updates were sent by email versus an hourlong (or longer) meeting. Planning tasks were done in working groups (emphasis on “working”) and larger meetings used to gain consensus and build action plans. And no meetings for exposure – actions will speak louder than words.?

When I scheduled a meeting, each came with a few ground rules:?

1. Only people who can contribute are invited. No one is there just “to be informed.”
2. Actions are assigned to the best person for the job.?
3. Every attendee can be assigned an action. Rank in the organization has no bearing on being assigned an action.
4. When assigned an action, that person is solely accountable for getting it done in the agreed timeline. We didn’t want higher-level people accepting actions then creating delays by assigning them to lower-level members of their team.
5. If you find a problem, you must also bring a possible solution to offer. This approach stopped the “peanut gallery” from simply finding fault as their contribution to the meeting.

?

It was interesting to see how people responded: no one complained about having fewer meetings to attend. People who didn’t want to accept any actions opted out of meetings. And more work got done.?

And when I explained to some people how I approach meetings, the response is usually, “that makes sense!”.?

So much for the approach being controversial.?

?

That’s mi punto de vista #MiPDV.

?