Have traditional meetings reached their expiry date?
Anthropologists trace meetings of humans back to prehistory, when for millennials they served the purpose of ensuring survival. Researchers have actually found that a contemporary hunter-gatherer tribe in the Philippines have maintained an earlier form of meetings which is called upon to discuss “marrying and killing”…
We have all observed how meeting life has changed with remote working from having meetings in slippers to using the strangest room of our home as we hide behind virtual backgrounds. Numerous studies carried out during the covid crisis observe greater discipline with start-end of meetings. Allegedly our working days have lengthened by almost an hour as lines between work/private life get blurred and as the number of meetings have increased. Meeting volume has increased but has its usefulness? Many are still too frequent, poorly run, displaying uncollaborative behaviour or with the wrong attendees. We have largely copy-pasted physical team habits to virtual team habits without giving much thought to rethinking the act of meeting.
A lot of good and recent advice has been written on meeting management and effectiveness. A deeper fix to meeting-mania however begs the following question: why do we really need to attend that next meeting?
Crowd wisdom, really?
Conventional wisdom implies that if you face a large complex problem, or want a good decision, you have to bring a lot of people around the meeting table. Cass Sunstein, an ex-Obama adviser and author of a book on the functioning of groups, thinks group deliberation is overrated as groups tend toward uniformity and censorship, especially if they are highly cohesive or if they are led by a highly directive manager. Groups can even amplify individual errors. The key to smarter groups in Sunstein’s view, is to access unshared, new information to improve the effectiveness of collaboration and especially decision-making. This might suggest a new filter for attending/calling a meeting: consider whether each attendee, including yourself, really have something new to bring to the meeting? The hardest of all might be to accept that our own attendance is not so vital.
More control, to add value or calm our insecurities?
Our current crisis-environment is a rich source of complex problems. Yves Morieux, the author of Smart Simplicity and partner at the Boston Consulting Group, observes that organisations often respond to complexity with more processes, meetings, and eventually more bureaucracy.
Some managers might also be tempted to use meetings as an instrument of control and exercise their power as they adjust to the remote relationships with their team. In fact, Morieux advocates instead a shift toward “managerial added value” as a source of greater productivity and engagement. This could be an invitation to evolve leadership practices and the opportunity to come up with a new post-Covid motivational “deal” between managers and their teams. Greater self-management could probably work as it meets the regular demands of top talent and new generations in engagement surveys. Leadership behaviours too would also need to evolve in creating an environment conducive to productivity and initiative. Although that could prove more challenging.
Indeed, a new motivational deal would not just be directed at the team, it starts with managers accepting to revisit their role, not feeling threatened by letting go a bit more. David Marquet, a former US commander who experimented empowerment with his submarine crew questions the point of hiring smart people if you end up telling them what to do.
Managers of a team could reduce the number of meetings they create by considering the following question: what is my source of “managerial added value” and as a consequence the legitimacy of my role? Commander Marquet advocates to move authority to where the information is, not the other way around. This requires a continuous investment in ensuring the team has clarity on the team’s mission and the competence to engage in the mission. The opportunity for the motivational “deal” can be significant and especially before we are tempted to revert to old habits in a post-Covid world.
Boredom to test meeting ROI
We cannot ignore the simple pleasures and benefits of meetings: companionship, fun, stimulation, learning, etc…All good reasons and contributing to making work a more fulfilling activity. All these factors are more implicit and intuitive. So why not also use more of our intuition in assessing the usefulness of attending a meeting? I still remember the day when in a simulation of team effectiveness, Manfred Kets de Vries, a professor of leadership, stormed the room and told me I looked bored. I was uncovered. I embarrassingly had to reveal to my team why, being bored by two team members locked into an endless and side-tracked debate. This sparked a tense but then an incredibly fruitful discussion about the purpose of our meeting. This allowed me to re-engage. You might not always have an insightful observer, but if you agree upfront with the team to use safely and respectfully a “boredom” card, it might also enhance your meetings and even clarify the desirability of everybody’s presence.
Most of us complain about the meeting culture in our organisations, the first lever, surprisingly is ourselves and which meetings we decide to attend. So how about moving from “marrying and killing” to “enjoying or leaving”?
To find out more:
Studies on changes to office life and meetings during Covid
On meeting effectiveness
On Smart Simplicity by Yves Morieux (2014) and related articles
KDVI Writer's Colony, 2021
The mystery of human existence lies in finding something to live for
Where to look for answers to the existential questions many of us grapple with.
Published on 13 Jun, 2018
'Words can give, at times, the illusion of providing a clear meaning'
The KDVI Research Lab is happy to announce another blog in our series that explores the undercurrents of positive organisational change. This time KDVI Associate Christopher Bockmann explores how the gap between what is intended, expressed and understood can be reduced.
Published on 15 Jan, 2018
"Does a good coach have to be tough?"
<!--StartFragment-->The KDVI Research Lab is happy to announce yet another blog in our series that explores the undercurrents of positive organisational change. This time KDVI Associate Manfred Barth explores whether coaching needs to be tough in order to affect real change.<!--EndFragment-->
Published on 13 Dec, 2017
The importance of paying attention to life cycles.
Published on 20 Dec, 2019
"Eccentric organisational behaviour and folie à deux"
This article describes the phenomenon called folie à deux—and how what we often term eccentric behaviour patterns of people in organisations might be better understood in that context.
Published on 1 Jul, 1979
When is it appropriate to share decision-making power as a leader?
Leaders shape their organisation through the decisions they take; it is one of the main expressions of their power. In fact, it can be seen as their main role. In this blog, Christopher explores how leaders can overcome the binary top-down/bottom-up perspective to leadership and decision-making.
Published on 4 Dec, 2018
We’ve been learning from those around us, but we’ve also been inspired by each other, our clients and the people we interact with. Even in serious times, connecting with others in a compassionate way, makes this time an opportunity for positivity as well as productivity.
Published on 11 Apr, 2020
Continuing on from Part 1 - Meetings: a matter of life or death, here we reflect on group role identities and the way they can affect underlying dynamics in meetings.
Published on 4 May, 2017
"Assessing psychological risk factors of leaders"
This blog presents a quick assessment of psychological risk factors for high performing individuals.
Published on 18 Apr, 2015
"Is it possible to know oneself?"
This blog explores the question of whether it is possible to know oneself when so much of that knowledge is beyond conscious awareness.
Published on 21 Jan, 2015