March 31, 2009
Godin’s Guide to Productive Meetings
Seth
Godin, best-selling author, lecturer, blogger, founder of Squidoo.com,
etc., is not alone in thinking that American businesses have a “meeting
problem.”
People
across the country are called together for various reasons (many times
those reasons escape attendees) and often spend a great deal of time while
accomplishing nada.
On
his blog, Mr. Godin offers nine recommendations for solving the problem.
He promises a “full refund” if after a week of using his system,
meetings at your company don’t improve. Here’s the list as condensed by moi.
- Severity of problems/challenges etc. vary so meeting
lengths should. - Meetings should be scheduled in five-minute increments.
If the person needs more than 20-minutes total than he/she better have
a really good reason. - Prepare to be productive. Provide attendees with
study materials before each meeting. - Get rid of all chairs from the meeting room. Mr.
Godin said he’s “serious” about this one. - If someone comes in two-minutes or more later
than the last person in the room, they need to pay a $10 fine to the
coffee fund. - Use an egg timer. When it rings the meeting is
over. - The person calling the meeting is required within
10-minutes of the meeting ending to send a short summary with action
items for attendees. - Create a place (e.g. white board or web page) for meeting attendees to
rate meetings and meeting leaders on a scale of one to five to evaluate
usefulness. Mr. Godin writes, “Watch what happens.” - If you’re not bringing anything to the meeting,
excuse yourself and leave. You won’t miss anything because the summary
will be available 10 minutes after the meeting adjourns.
Discussion
Questions: Have meetings gotten out of control at your company? Which
of Seth Godin’s recommendations do you like most/least? What are your recommendations
for getting the most out of meetings?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
The best meeting improvement tactics I ever saw was at Eddie Bauer in 2000 (don’t know if they still have them):
— 3 minutes after a meeting is started, the door will be locked (this being the single most effective rule).
Plus, all “meeting rules,” like ending precisely on time, follow up notes, etc, were posted on every meeting room wall as a constant reminder.
I can tell you (e.g. not an opinion), these rules really worked.
What a popular topic! These suggestions are not new, so why don’t more companies and employees implement them? Meetings are social events and most people, even those who complain about too many meetings, still like the social aspect. Sitting at your desk doing things is harder than sitting in a room not doing things but talking to your neighbor about the game last night.
To get past meetings, you need to redesign workflow and jobs so that meetings are incompatible with the work environment, and you need to provide other avenues to socialize. I would write more, but I have to go to a meeting.
It’s interesting…. When we work with our entrepreneurial clients, our meetings are significantly shorter than the meetings that are held at our larger company clients. Meetings are held because it makes people think they are busy. With the technology that exists today, long meetings are not only waste of time, they are 100% unnecessary.
While not all of Seth’s ideas are realistic, the fact is, he is correct. Meetings lead to poor productivity and less communication, not the other way around.
I would write more, but I have to run to a meeting.
In many companies meetings have gotten out of control: too many accomplishing too little. Many of Mr. Godin’s ideas have merit, particularly not having chairs in the meeting room and publishing a list of action items within 10 minutes of the meeting’s end. Rating the quality of a meeting is also a good idea, but might be skewed by the rank of the person calling the meeting.
The key question is, why do companies need to have so many meetings? Is it fear of making decisions? Perhaps a need to cover one’s derriere or protestations from those not included in the meetings? Companies need to take a hard look at the amount of time their people are spending in meetings and evaluate the effectiveness of how that time is being used. Open communication is important, but there are other ways to accomplish this without another meeting.
Mr. Godin’s recommendations are meant to be conversation-starters but also make some sense. They address the very real sense that time management is a lost art. Individuals in the workplace are hampered getting their own tasks done and leaving some time for productive thought if they are caught in an endless loop of meetings and e-mails. Many meetings happen out of a sense of the manager’s self-importance, not out of any urgent need to gather a group together.
The most important suggestion of all is missing from the list: The person in charge needs to start by asking the question, “Is this meeting necessary?” If the honest answer is “No,” then the meeting shouldn’t be scheduled in the first place. A lot can get accomplished through five minutes of personal interaction between two people rather than scheduling an hour for a dozen people. This may seem to run counter to the idea of “team building” but in fact is more respectful of the team members’ most important asset: time.
Most of these ideas are all well and good. But he seems to have missed one item that has always worked very well for me. Limit the length of the meeting to a specific time with the most important items dealt with first. When the meeting is adjourned, whatever is not covered–tough.
Meetings are like myths. We rationalize them but we have not been able to destroy them, or at least the unessential ones. So like government budgets they keep expanding and as a perk of sorts with more and more people getting invited.
Meetings should be called when there is need to communicate things of universal significance or to invite suggestions on a common problem or opportunity. There should be an egg timer geared to a specific length of time and no chairs.
Like most things in retail, no one grew up expecting to do most of the jobs they have to do. Meetings are the same. There was no grandmother to show you the proper way. All of these tips are excellent–getting the meeting planners to agree to the boundaries would be the greatest challenge.
The miasma of meetings plagues the corporate world currently and Godin’s recommended strategies would certainly do much to correct what ails us all and reduces productivity. My personal favorite (and not included) is the simplest–state the reason for the meeting and what a successful outcome would include–then assign tasks, roles, and responsibilities for members/attendees to complete.
If there is no clear reason for the meeting, no measure of success, and nobody tasked with specific contributions–it is destined to fail. Meetings have become confused with “taking action” far too often. If one attends a meeting, there is a veneer of having done something to address an issue. Furthermore, if multiple people are in attendance, then responsibility is diffused across all attendees for the outcome.
Contrary to what many believe, the LACK of conflict and not the presence of factions, difference of opinions, or difficult members is what torpedoes most meetings from being as productive as they could be (see: Groupthink phenomena or a cousin to it “Abilene Paradox”). Therefore, it is essential to ensure there are reasons for meeting members to attend and that at least in some way, there are areas of expertise represented and people that will be tasked with completing the ultimate outcome (and not merely those that dictate and decide) that represent different backgrounds, experiences, roles, responsibilities, etc. In essence, build in some opportunity for discussion of different opinions or there is no need for the meeting.
I am less enthusiastic about timeframes in which a meeting must conclude. To be governed by the clock may reduce time wasting, but it can also be at the expense of quality decision making. I think having an agenda that has been distributed previously and knowing what constitutes a quality decision is preferable to being managed by 5 minute increments.
Have meetings gotten out of control? Meetings have been out of control for as long as I have been in business. 35 years ago, rising to a certain level at Mobil, the reality of my job was to go to meetings so that the people working for me could actually run the business. Did these day-long meetings accomplish anything? For the most part, nothing that could not be accomplished in a 30 minute meeting, or no meeting at all. And in many cases, the meetings actually brought the decision process to a halt.
In comparison, I have headed two entrepreneurial companies and there was almost no decision that couldn’t be made by someone sticking their head in another’s office for a quick dialogue.
Great points! We (and everyone else) get called into meetings that we have no business being in, or go on way too long. Worst of all is that in too many cases not a darn thing happens!
Godin’s points are all right on the mark. Short time frames. Energetic. Focused. Action oriented. Accountable. As simple as this all sounds, you would think more meetings would run properly.
And then, there are those dreaded conference calls….
I would point out that most of these suggestions would work for conference calls as well.
The key is for companies to teach their staff how to value their time more. I’m always amazed at the number of people who complain about working long hours , yet are some of the worst at running meetings and hanging out, talking.
Funny, I just returned from a chairless meeting and, while the meeting was good, the chairlessness of it all was tedious. Forty people standing up at 7:00 in the morning before the coffee’s had time to hit; that’s brutal! I do see how this could work for smaller groups and shorter meetings, though. Seeing everyone’s full body language completely changes the interaction dynamic.
I love Mr. Godin’s ideas and think that they would work under most circumstances. We often do “lightning rounds” with our clients in which we literally turn on an iPhone timer and go from subject to subject in three to five-minute intervals. We cover quite a bit of ground that way and it is amazing how few subjects need to be revisited.
These are good ideas with a little dramatic flair. Whether you implement some or all of these, the fact is that meetings are unproductive in most companies. Many times, meetings are scheduled and attended to get out of work! Many times they are CYA meetings. So if you change that culture, meetings will change also.
One reason companies have so many time-wasting meetings is that they don’t empower staff to get things done. When everyone needs to buy into every decision, the office becomes a giant one-legged race. Allow staff to make decisions, and meetings largely disappear.
Of course Seth’s points are provocative and encourage us to reconsider how we plan and conduct meetings. So let’s focus on “us,” in this case me. Too many comments are about “them.”
If I want a meeting that I lead to be productive, I plan an agenda that I estimate can be completed within a certain period of time. The time has to be appropriate for the agenda, but also has to take into account what the attendees will allow and can afford. It might be necessary to plan two meetings.
I promise myself and the participants what it is I want the outcome of the meeting to be (e.g., a research methodology, the complete or preliminary outline of a strategic plan) and conduct the meeting accordingly. Everyone has the same expectations walking in: the purpose, the agenda, and the length of the meeting. I mark the agenda (for my use) according to time intervals, prioritizing as I would with a focus group guide. It helps me control the flow of the meeting. I encourage open dialog and remind everyone when we are getting near the end and have to stay on track. That means I keep my watch on the table, so that I can discreetly refer to it. If necessary, discussion is tabled for another time and place (maybe the phone to tie things up).
At the end of the meeting I thank everyone for their contributions and sum up where we are. The follow up memo outlines our conclusions and next steps. Everyone who has been invited is included on the memo whether they attended or did not. Why would I invite them in the first place if I did not expect to include them in the meeting and its outcome?
By the way, if I’ve invited someone to a meeting, it’s because I think he or she can contribute or because they will benefit immediately or in the long term. If someone has nothing to say, it doesn’t mean that person should not be at the meeting and I would not encourage that person to leave. I think that’s inconsiderate to the person and to the rest of the group.
Have you ever questioned the term, “pre-planning?” What’s a pre-planning meeting? Is that like a planning meeting only more “pre?” Of course it’s redundant and jargonistic, which pretty much defines Mr. Godin. I own and have read all of Seth’s books, as has my entrepreneurial son, also named Seth. We both find him entertaining, but still serving up pabulum in various flavors (like Trout & Ries). Picture the yogurt section in the supermarket.
I once participated in a business e-conference in which from my office in NorCal I witnessed two (male) participants in New York get into a fistfight. What fun, and what a great meeting strategy! I would surrender my Blackberry (actually an AT&T Tilt) at the e-door if I could count on drama like that in every meeting.
Here’s the point: Meetings aren’t about meetings. They’re about preparation, managing expectations, and interlocutorship. (Perhaps this should be called “prep-planning.”) Train your people in meeting skills. Teach them how to prepare, present, and perambulate the heck out of there. Have predetermined communication goals and check for understanding at the end of each meeting to see if everyone received the same messages. On the receiving end, teach participants how to listen, frame questions, review, and provide feedback. And in the middle, have an interlocutor or master-of-ceremonies to coordinate and record the results of the meeting.
This recording feature cannot be overlooked. Here’s an example: For decades food retailers (myself included) have attended the biggest meeting in their industry, the FMI convention in Chicago. They arrive without “learning agendas” and are not required to provide in-depth reports to their employers upon their return home. I have never been asked for a report to my employer after the convention. Thus, FMI has become far less relevant over the years due to declining retailer attendance which is based on negative ROI. Instead, it’s become more of an opportunity to visit Chicago and have a steak at Harry Caray’s. In daily corporate practice, a published report of every meeting keeps participants on their toes and eager to see their input reflected in print. Bosses love this stuff, and subordinates seeking approval become more participative. It’s like a TV quiz show, in which every participant is alert and prepared, and there’s a video record of their performance. Plus, when promises are made in print by meeting participants, they tend to be held accountable.
Everyone here has made great comments. Seth’s guidelines are very good too, but would not work in all circumstances. I do agree; corporate America is “meetinged to death”! Many of these are mind-numbingly boring experiences and useless exercises in frustration. Most meetings are not necessary and could be taken care of via an email memo.
Some are necessary to lay the foundations for strategic projects or growth initiatives. But, many include personnel who are necessary to the success of the project.
My favorite objective is to provide the study materials and required readings for preparation prior to the meeting. This way the attendees can contribute vs. wondering why they are in the meeting at all.
One suggestion I haven’t seen–ban Blackberries and other forms of electronic communication. A meeting is pointless if everyone is only half paying attention because their minds are involved with other distractions. It causes a lot of dead time and “could you go over that again?”
Meeting overload is a real pain point, especially when real work ends up getting pushed to evenings and weekends. And of all the meeting types, it’s the meeting to prepare for meetings that seriously drives me up a wall. All Godin’s suggestions are great. I especially like #8, Meeting Ratings. And #5, Fines for Latecomers, is way overdue. My problem, I like the list, but getting the folks who actually call the meetings to agree is a whole other issue. That would require at least five or six meetings.
Good comments and suggestions. One component seems to be overlooked, however. In order for most of these suggestions to work, the meeting needs a facilitator. The biggest risk for all of these time control related suggestions is the filibuster, which could be intentional or habitual. The egg timer is not a facilitator–the person who flips it over is.
Good points but they must used in context. I think companies should assign a meeting score card and somehow the facilitator would recap and measure the productivity of each meeting. I believe in preparing for meetings but not everyone does and preparing takes time. There is not enough respect for a person’s time and understanding its impact on productivity and the success of your business. Anyone remember this cliché: Time is money? I think our culture wastes time the way we waste money.
I will say that the drop by one’s pod also requires etiquette with respect to interruption and asking for a specific amount of time. Start [teaching] in our colleges that time is finite and should be respected, productive, and cherished.
These ideas are great and I would say they are basic necessities for a successful meeting but what about the meeting itself? Raise your hand if you suffer from Power Point fatigue.
I once contracted with a client who employed a dynamic individual whose sole purpose was to plan meeting agendas and structure time. Let’s face it. Some people should not be giving meetings. Why not just print out the Power Point and let me stay at home? Meetings will be more productive when there is more human interaction during the session. I like the coffee fund idea.
Another director I worked with used to fine people for not turning their phone completely off and sure enough, someone’s Blackberry would be vibrating across the table.
While I agree with the concept of not having chairs in order to “force” meeting to remain short, I believe there are other ways to ensure productivity. I think the keys are to send out pre-read materials, allow those that don’t have to be there (non-contributors) to leave and limiting the length of the meeting.
I find most entrepreneurial companies don’t have this issue–it is the large corporations where people feel compelled to attend and contribute (even if they have nothing really to say) where the problem is most prevalent. We encourage our clients to avoid the “meetings are up and business productivity is down.”
As in all large organisations, meetings are designed to allow people to walk around and fill their schedules. The first point would be to have a meeting only to agree a decision, since most meetings are time wasters today, agree from now on that a meeting is only called to make a decision based on sub-groups’ submissions. Timelines are set up for submissions to decision meetings, which will allow sub-groups to work to a target date. The meeting is not over until a decision has been made; this will ensure that people make a decision in order to leave the office. Also, employ a professional chair to handle a meeting and issue instructions and minutes.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
The best meeting improvement tactics I ever saw was at Eddie Bauer in 2000 (don’t know if they still have them):
— 3 minutes after a meeting is started, the door will be locked (this being the single most effective rule).
Plus, all “meeting rules,” like ending precisely on time, follow up notes, etc, were posted on every meeting room wall as a constant reminder.
I can tell you (e.g. not an opinion), these rules really worked.
What a popular topic! These suggestions are not new, so why don’t more companies and employees implement them? Meetings are social events and most people, even those who complain about too many meetings, still like the social aspect. Sitting at your desk doing things is harder than sitting in a room not doing things but talking to your neighbor about the game last night.
To get past meetings, you need to redesign workflow and jobs so that meetings are incompatible with the work environment, and you need to provide other avenues to socialize. I would write more, but I have to go to a meeting.
It’s interesting…. When we work with our entrepreneurial clients, our meetings are significantly shorter than the meetings that are held at our larger company clients. Meetings are held because it makes people think they are busy. With the technology that exists today, long meetings are not only waste of time, they are 100% unnecessary.
While not all of Seth’s ideas are realistic, the fact is, he is correct. Meetings lead to poor productivity and less communication, not the other way around.
I would write more, but I have to run to a meeting.
In many companies meetings have gotten out of control: too many accomplishing too little. Many of Mr. Godin’s ideas have merit, particularly not having chairs in the meeting room and publishing a list of action items within 10 minutes of the meeting’s end. Rating the quality of a meeting is also a good idea, but might be skewed by the rank of the person calling the meeting.
The key question is, why do companies need to have so many meetings? Is it fear of making decisions? Perhaps a need to cover one’s derriere or protestations from those not included in the meetings? Companies need to take a hard look at the amount of time their people are spending in meetings and evaluate the effectiveness of how that time is being used. Open communication is important, but there are other ways to accomplish this without another meeting.
Mr. Godin’s recommendations are meant to be conversation-starters but also make some sense. They address the very real sense that time management is a lost art. Individuals in the workplace are hampered getting their own tasks done and leaving some time for productive thought if they are caught in an endless loop of meetings and e-mails. Many meetings happen out of a sense of the manager’s self-importance, not out of any urgent need to gather a group together.
The most important suggestion of all is missing from the list: The person in charge needs to start by asking the question, “Is this meeting necessary?” If the honest answer is “No,” then the meeting shouldn’t be scheduled in the first place. A lot can get accomplished through five minutes of personal interaction between two people rather than scheduling an hour for a dozen people. This may seem to run counter to the idea of “team building” but in fact is more respectful of the team members’ most important asset: time.
Most of these ideas are all well and good. But he seems to have missed one item that has always worked very well for me. Limit the length of the meeting to a specific time with the most important items dealt with first. When the meeting is adjourned, whatever is not covered–tough.
Meetings are like myths. We rationalize them but we have not been able to destroy them, or at least the unessential ones. So like government budgets they keep expanding and as a perk of sorts with more and more people getting invited.
Meetings should be called when there is need to communicate things of universal significance or to invite suggestions on a common problem or opportunity. There should be an egg timer geared to a specific length of time and no chairs.
Like most things in retail, no one grew up expecting to do most of the jobs they have to do. Meetings are the same. There was no grandmother to show you the proper way. All of these tips are excellent–getting the meeting planners to agree to the boundaries would be the greatest challenge.
The miasma of meetings plagues the corporate world currently and Godin’s recommended strategies would certainly do much to correct what ails us all and reduces productivity. My personal favorite (and not included) is the simplest–state the reason for the meeting and what a successful outcome would include–then assign tasks, roles, and responsibilities for members/attendees to complete.
If there is no clear reason for the meeting, no measure of success, and nobody tasked with specific contributions–it is destined to fail. Meetings have become confused with “taking action” far too often. If one attends a meeting, there is a veneer of having done something to address an issue. Furthermore, if multiple people are in attendance, then responsibility is diffused across all attendees for the outcome.
Contrary to what many believe, the LACK of conflict and not the presence of factions, difference of opinions, or difficult members is what torpedoes most meetings from being as productive as they could be (see: Groupthink phenomena or a cousin to it “Abilene Paradox”). Therefore, it is essential to ensure there are reasons for meeting members to attend and that at least in some way, there are areas of expertise represented and people that will be tasked with completing the ultimate outcome (and not merely those that dictate and decide) that represent different backgrounds, experiences, roles, responsibilities, etc. In essence, build in some opportunity for discussion of different opinions or there is no need for the meeting.
I am less enthusiastic about timeframes in which a meeting must conclude. To be governed by the clock may reduce time wasting, but it can also be at the expense of quality decision making. I think having an agenda that has been distributed previously and knowing what constitutes a quality decision is preferable to being managed by 5 minute increments.
Have meetings gotten out of control? Meetings have been out of control for as long as I have been in business. 35 years ago, rising to a certain level at Mobil, the reality of my job was to go to meetings so that the people working for me could actually run the business. Did these day-long meetings accomplish anything? For the most part, nothing that could not be accomplished in a 30 minute meeting, or no meeting at all. And in many cases, the meetings actually brought the decision process to a halt.
In comparison, I have headed two entrepreneurial companies and there was almost no decision that couldn’t be made by someone sticking their head in another’s office for a quick dialogue.
Great points! We (and everyone else) get called into meetings that we have no business being in, or go on way too long. Worst of all is that in too many cases not a darn thing happens!
Godin’s points are all right on the mark. Short time frames. Energetic. Focused. Action oriented. Accountable. As simple as this all sounds, you would think more meetings would run properly.
And then, there are those dreaded conference calls….
I would point out that most of these suggestions would work for conference calls as well.
The key is for companies to teach their staff how to value their time more. I’m always amazed at the number of people who complain about working long hours , yet are some of the worst at running meetings and hanging out, talking.
Funny, I just returned from a chairless meeting and, while the meeting was good, the chairlessness of it all was tedious. Forty people standing up at 7:00 in the morning before the coffee’s had time to hit; that’s brutal! I do see how this could work for smaller groups and shorter meetings, though. Seeing everyone’s full body language completely changes the interaction dynamic.
I love Mr. Godin’s ideas and think that they would work under most circumstances. We often do “lightning rounds” with our clients in which we literally turn on an iPhone timer and go from subject to subject in three to five-minute intervals. We cover quite a bit of ground that way and it is amazing how few subjects need to be revisited.
These are good ideas with a little dramatic flair. Whether you implement some or all of these, the fact is that meetings are unproductive in most companies. Many times, meetings are scheduled and attended to get out of work! Many times they are CYA meetings. So if you change that culture, meetings will change also.
One reason companies have so many time-wasting meetings is that they don’t empower staff to get things done. When everyone needs to buy into every decision, the office becomes a giant one-legged race. Allow staff to make decisions, and meetings largely disappear.
Of course Seth’s points are provocative and encourage us to reconsider how we plan and conduct meetings. So let’s focus on “us,” in this case me. Too many comments are about “them.”
If I want a meeting that I lead to be productive, I plan an agenda that I estimate can be completed within a certain period of time. The time has to be appropriate for the agenda, but also has to take into account what the attendees will allow and can afford. It might be necessary to plan two meetings.
I promise myself and the participants what it is I want the outcome of the meeting to be (e.g., a research methodology, the complete or preliminary outline of a strategic plan) and conduct the meeting accordingly. Everyone has the same expectations walking in: the purpose, the agenda, and the length of the meeting. I mark the agenda (for my use) according to time intervals, prioritizing as I would with a focus group guide. It helps me control the flow of the meeting. I encourage open dialog and remind everyone when we are getting near the end and have to stay on track. That means I keep my watch on the table, so that I can discreetly refer to it. If necessary, discussion is tabled for another time and place (maybe the phone to tie things up).
At the end of the meeting I thank everyone for their contributions and sum up where we are. The follow up memo outlines our conclusions and next steps. Everyone who has been invited is included on the memo whether they attended or did not. Why would I invite them in the first place if I did not expect to include them in the meeting and its outcome?
By the way, if I’ve invited someone to a meeting, it’s because I think he or she can contribute or because they will benefit immediately or in the long term. If someone has nothing to say, it doesn’t mean that person should not be at the meeting and I would not encourage that person to leave. I think that’s inconsiderate to the person and to the rest of the group.
Have you ever questioned the term, “pre-planning?” What’s a pre-planning meeting? Is that like a planning meeting only more “pre?” Of course it’s redundant and jargonistic, which pretty much defines Mr. Godin. I own and have read all of Seth’s books, as has my entrepreneurial son, also named Seth. We both find him entertaining, but still serving up pabulum in various flavors (like Trout & Ries). Picture the yogurt section in the supermarket.
I once participated in a business e-conference in which from my office in NorCal I witnessed two (male) participants in New York get into a fistfight. What fun, and what a great meeting strategy! I would surrender my Blackberry (actually an AT&T Tilt) at the e-door if I could count on drama like that in every meeting.
Here’s the point: Meetings aren’t about meetings. They’re about preparation, managing expectations, and interlocutorship. (Perhaps this should be called “prep-planning.”) Train your people in meeting skills. Teach them how to prepare, present, and perambulate the heck out of there. Have predetermined communication goals and check for understanding at the end of each meeting to see if everyone received the same messages. On the receiving end, teach participants how to listen, frame questions, review, and provide feedback. And in the middle, have an interlocutor or master-of-ceremonies to coordinate and record the results of the meeting.
This recording feature cannot be overlooked. Here’s an example: For decades food retailers (myself included) have attended the biggest meeting in their industry, the FMI convention in Chicago. They arrive without “learning agendas” and are not required to provide in-depth reports to their employers upon their return home. I have never been asked for a report to my employer after the convention. Thus, FMI has become far less relevant over the years due to declining retailer attendance which is based on negative ROI. Instead, it’s become more of an opportunity to visit Chicago and have a steak at Harry Caray’s. In daily corporate practice, a published report of every meeting keeps participants on their toes and eager to see their input reflected in print. Bosses love this stuff, and subordinates seeking approval become more participative. It’s like a TV quiz show, in which every participant is alert and prepared, and there’s a video record of their performance. Plus, when promises are made in print by meeting participants, they tend to be held accountable.
Everyone here has made great comments. Seth’s guidelines are very good too, but would not work in all circumstances. I do agree; corporate America is “meetinged to death”! Many of these are mind-numbingly boring experiences and useless exercises in frustration. Most meetings are not necessary and could be taken care of via an email memo.
Some are necessary to lay the foundations for strategic projects or growth initiatives. But, many include personnel who are necessary to the success of the project.
My favorite objective is to provide the study materials and required readings for preparation prior to the meeting. This way the attendees can contribute vs. wondering why they are in the meeting at all.
One suggestion I haven’t seen–ban Blackberries and other forms of electronic communication. A meeting is pointless if everyone is only half paying attention because their minds are involved with other distractions. It causes a lot of dead time and “could you go over that again?”
Meeting overload is a real pain point, especially when real work ends up getting pushed to evenings and weekends. And of all the meeting types, it’s the meeting to prepare for meetings that seriously drives me up a wall. All Godin’s suggestions are great. I especially like #8, Meeting Ratings. And #5, Fines for Latecomers, is way overdue. My problem, I like the list, but getting the folks who actually call the meetings to agree is a whole other issue. That would require at least five or six meetings.
Good comments and suggestions. One component seems to be overlooked, however. In order for most of these suggestions to work, the meeting needs a facilitator. The biggest risk for all of these time control related suggestions is the filibuster, which could be intentional or habitual. The egg timer is not a facilitator–the person who flips it over is.
Good points but they must used in context. I think companies should assign a meeting score card and somehow the facilitator would recap and measure the productivity of each meeting. I believe in preparing for meetings but not everyone does and preparing takes time. There is not enough respect for a person’s time and understanding its impact on productivity and the success of your business. Anyone remember this cliché: Time is money? I think our culture wastes time the way we waste money.
I will say that the drop by one’s pod also requires etiquette with respect to interruption and asking for a specific amount of time. Start [teaching] in our colleges that time is finite and should be respected, productive, and cherished.
These ideas are great and I would say they are basic necessities for a successful meeting but what about the meeting itself? Raise your hand if you suffer from Power Point fatigue.
I once contracted with a client who employed a dynamic individual whose sole purpose was to plan meeting agendas and structure time. Let’s face it. Some people should not be giving meetings. Why not just print out the Power Point and let me stay at home? Meetings will be more productive when there is more human interaction during the session. I like the coffee fund idea.
Another director I worked with used to fine people for not turning their phone completely off and sure enough, someone’s Blackberry would be vibrating across the table.
While I agree with the concept of not having chairs in order to “force” meeting to remain short, I believe there are other ways to ensure productivity. I think the keys are to send out pre-read materials, allow those that don’t have to be there (non-contributors) to leave and limiting the length of the meeting.
I find most entrepreneurial companies don’t have this issue–it is the large corporations where people feel compelled to attend and contribute (even if they have nothing really to say) where the problem is most prevalent. We encourage our clients to avoid the “meetings are up and business productivity is down.”
As in all large organisations, meetings are designed to allow people to walk around and fill their schedules. The first point would be to have a meeting only to agree a decision, since most meetings are time wasters today, agree from now on that a meeting is only called to make a decision based on sub-groups’ submissions. Timelines are set up for submissions to decision meetings, which will allow sub-groups to work to a target date. The meeting is not over until a decision has been made; this will ensure that people make a decision in order to leave the office. Also, employ a professional chair to handle a meeting and issue instructions and minutes.