How not to waste 34 hours a month in meetings

None of the participants will ever forget this meeting, that much is certain. The venue was the US Department of Defense, starring a new Secretary of State responsible for procurement, who was to lead her first meeting with suppliers and colleagues from her own company. When she entered the room, she was faced with 60 participants. She said, “Ok, it’s best if we just form a circle at the beginning. Everyone briefly introduces themselves and says why they are here.” The participants rolled their eyes, but did as they were told.

After the first two presentations, the State Secretary said: “Thank you very much for your interest. But we don’t need you here today.” After others had heard this announcement, more and more people who were not yet in line broke away from the circle, took their bags, greeted the group without a word and disappeared. Within about 20 minutes, 60 participants had become 12.

This story, told by Bain & Co. partner Michael C. Mankings on the Harvard Business Review blog, contains one of the most important principles for successful meetings: small groups. But the group size of 12 attendees that was created in the end in this instance is still too large, according to widespread expert opinion.

Capping meeting participation at 7

In their book Decide & Deliver, the US management masterminds Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers formulated “the law of seven.” Growing a meeting group beyond seven people, according to their thesis, reduces effectiveness by 10% for each additional participant. Doing the math, meetings with 17 or more participants are even completely unsuitable for making any decisions.

Many readers probably think at this point: “Even in meetings with only five participants, we don’t decide anything, but talk too much.” Meetings have become a real plague in many companies. And that is due in large part to their sheer quantity.

34 hours per month in meetings

Software manufacturer Altassian has evaluated several studies and surveys on the subject of meetings. In Germany, for example, the average employee participates in 65 meetings per month, considers half of them to be totally superfluous, and estimates they spend about 34 working hours per month in meetings.

This more or less breaks down to 8.5 hours per week, with the time necessary for preparation and follow-up not taken into account. Why so much time in so many meetings? The answer is both simple and frightening: Because it has always been that way.

Pseudo-important self-promoters

And because hardly anyone questions it. Chiefs and subchiefs confirm their importance and power (to themselves and each other) in pseudo-important chatter. And team members keep attending because the head of department is there, because it is done that way, because everyone goes, and because staying away would be interpreted as refusal to work, disinterest, perhaps even obstruction. At least that’s what they believe.

The ritualized madness does not change because no one asks the decisive question: “Do we really need a meeting to clarify topic XY?” Or maybe a bilateral conversation, a phone call, a short briefing of two to three people is enough? The unspoken principle in many companies is: If there is something to clarify, then there is also a meeting. Everyone is there, no one feels excluded, and because no more than 20% of those involved are interested in the content anyway, the others can post something in peace or answer private e-mails via smartphone.

Maximum two topics per meeting

If a meeting is to be truly meaningful, it should revolve around a maximum of two topics. There must be clear agendas for each of these two topics, including the appropriate preparation. An employee should be specifically responsible for a topic, prepare it, set up the agenda and moderate it.

Start and end on time

If a meeting officially starts at 2 p.m., then it is unacceptable for participants to show at 2:15 p.m. All they are expressing is that they don’t care enough about the event and have no respect for their colleagues’ time. As a rigorous but effective countermeasure, it is advisable to lock the door of the conference room from the inside at 2 pm.

The end of the meeting must be handled just as rigorously. After all, the quality of the results does not increase with the duration of a meeting. If the meeting is consistently limited to one hour, then everything important is done in one hour. If two hours are scheduled for the same topic, then it takes two. Never more.

Parkinson’s Law on Meeting Procedures

This phenomenon has been known since at least 1955. In that year, the British sociologist C. Northcote Parkinson formulated his Parkinson’s Law: “Work expands to the exact extent that time is available to complete it.” Here, the words “work” and “meeting” are interchangeable, especially since Parkinson was also decidedly concerned with conferences and their processes.

According to his observation, it is not the most important topics that are discussed in the most detail, but the most trivial, because most participants understand something about them and can therefore have a say. Incompetence in important factual issues is compensated for by lengthy speeches on trivial matters, according to Parkinson.

So if you want to avoid babble attacks and thematic frays, you should make sure that the schedule is swift and maintained. If not even the stakeholders have prepared for a topic, then it is best to break off the meeting immediately. Or you can use the moment to ask why no one is interested in the topic in question.

Addressing distracted participants in a targeted manner

The moderator should specifically address consistently silent parties and smartphone users without obviously exposing them. For example: “Mr. Meier, what is your opinion on the subject?” Of course, Mr. Meier won’t say what he really thinks: He doesn’t care about the topic of the meeting at all and likely the whole place as well.

Instead he will make some messed up, likely irrelevant comment. One or two more similar follow-up questions from the moderator will ensure everyone in the room will be of the opinion that Meier could have stayed at his desk.

Department heads and board members should, similar to the State Secretary in the story quoted at the beginning, clearly and repeatedly point out that participation in a meeting is voluntary. And that not always the entire department has to appear, but perhaps only the boss and the employee who is most familiar with the topic in question.

Decisions and work orders

Documentation is also important because it not only shows progress, but also redundancies. Every meeting should end with a decision or at least with a concrete work assignment. If neither exists, this circumstance must also be recorded.

If no decisions are made on a topic more than twice, it should not be put on the agenda again without a good reason.

Sometimes it has to be spiders

Despite the points mentioned, detailed discussion, perhaps even spinning, sometimes makes sense. For example, when creative input and new ideas are sought. However, such processes should take place outside of regular meetings. For example, on Friday afternoon with a non-alcoholic beer.