The Value of Leadership Time

In the intricate dance of organizational dynamics, leadership time is a finite and therefore invaluable organisational resource. Yet, from our work with leadership teams, little or no consideration is given to how to use this valuable resource in a meaningful or impactful way. This not only impacts the effectiveness of leadership teams, but also the way in which leaders invest their time ripples throughout the organisation.

Leadership time allocation is more than a logistical consideration; it's a reflection of priorities and values. Deliberate choices in how leaders spend their time send powerful cultural messages throughout the organization. Whether it's mentoring, strategic planning, or leading by example, these choices set the tone for what the organization values most.

We got to wondering how big an issue leadership time is for organisations and the research is astounding. One way of trying to size the issue of leadership time is to look at the prevalence of meetings within an organisation. A prevalence that seems to be increasing with the advent of remote and hybrid work.

Today’s knowledge workers typically spend more than 85% of their time in meetings , which studies show negatively affects people’s psychological, physical, and mental well-being (Sloan, 2022).

Meeting Prevalence

Furthermore, the research estimates that when we factor in employee time that goes with these meetings, many organisations devote between 7% and 15% of their entire personnel budgets to meetings (HBR, 2006).

A study from the London School of Economics and Harvard Business School examined the time allocation of CEOs and found that they spend about 18 hours per week in meetings, which was the single largest category of how their time was spent.

If these numbers are indicative, then the obvious point is the importance of meetings as a way of achieving organisational success, given how much is invested in their use. We then wondered about whether this is true - is there a link between meetings and organisational performance.

Meeting Impact

The simple reality is meetings are not the performance multipliers that you would expect given their prevalence in organisations.

A study by Microsoft, America Online, and Salary.com found that employees consider approximately 5.6 hours spent in meetings each week to be "wasted" time.

Some estimates indicate that as many as half of all work meetings are rated as “poor”, leading organizations to waste at least 213 billion of the dollars they spend on meetings per year in the USA (2017).

The mismatch between meeting quality and prevalence has not gone unnoticed with some organisations coming up with innovative ways to address 'meeting hell' or overload.

The Call to Action - Addressing Meeting Overload

Highwire did what any good PR agency would do: created a challenge with a snappy title. The company came up with the “#timeback challenge, ” which included trying to purge 30% of meetings and shortening the length of meetings. The goal is to get 30-minute meetings down to 25 minutes or less, and hour-long meetings down to 45 minutes.

The company then created a Slack channel called the “#timebackchallenge” where workers share what they are doing with all their new free time. On average, people were saving about three hours a week (CNN, 2020).

Rather than slacking off, it seems that employees put their 'time savings' to good use. In a HBR (2022) study the reduction in meetings led to an array of positive productivity gains. And proportionally, the more meetings are cut, the greater the gains.

On the face of it then, the remedy seems simple. We task leaders to reduce the number and length of meetings. However, this has not been easy for many of them to do consistently.

Letting Go

There is a fascinating psychology that lies behind leaders and meetings.

As one employee responded: "I appreciate Wednesday free meetings, but it has been replaced by pay back Thursdays".

In other words, we cannot provide meeting free days, only to double up the next day. Letting go means that leaders have to rethink how they use their time or what it means to be a leader. For example, if the reduction in meetings leads to less micro-management, then how do leaders fill this time more effectively, whilst resisting the temptation to fill it with you guessed it, more meetings.

To sum up, as organisations are re-inventing work, there is a need for leadership practices and styles to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, challenges and expectations. It seems strange for leaders to cling to meetings, when the evidence is clear that leadership value lies elsewhere. In our work, we are continuously challenging leaders to be intentional in the use of their time, as the alternative is extremely wasteful.