On Meetings

 

Everyone looking forward to the icebreaker at the beginning of the off-site?

I've made a few oblique references to my feelings on meetings in prior posts, but I'll be more explicit here - I hate meetings.  I'm sure some of you will roll your eyes, mumble that I'm being way too impractical, and respond that meetings are necessary.  Sure, but not in the heavy-handed way they lacquer the day-to-day life of the corporate world.

I understand that everyone has different intake styles and some people are better at absorbing information via audible or visual cues.  And, in settings where companies employ people of various nationalities, it's understandable that people may feel diffident about communicating via written means in a language they don't believe themselves to be fluent in.

But...

Most meetings aren't about absorbing information.  They're about the appearance of looking busy, especially when your role is more generically defined (aka management).  If the meeting is about absorbing information, then you'd expect to see everyone more deeply engaged, taking notes, and ensuring that they're not double-booked.  In any meeting with more than five people, I've never seen this.  Most of the time in meetings with fewer than five people, I don't see this.

People tune in for the relevant portion of the meeting they're a part of and then immediately tune out.  Occasionally, they'll tune in at other points simply to act as though they've been paying attention.  This is all part of a sadomasochistic game:

• If you can quote part of a meeting after the fact that no one else remembers, you "win."
• If you're double-booked and can only attend part of a can't-miss meeting, you "win."
• If you force everyone else to reschedule a meeting because you can't attend, you "win."
• If you need to start your day extremely early or extend it into the night to accommodate someone else's schedule, you "win."

Chances are, when you "win" you've gotten nothing else out of the meeting other than an attendance prize.  Action items from most meetings don't show up until the fourth or fifth iteration of the topic and reporting on them is then delayed for another iteration or two.

All of this occurs because people are deadset against written communication, and outside of my cynical knee-jerk assumptions (writing and reading take actual effort, it's harder to be a present passive observer on an email chain than to be present in a meeting), I'm not exactly sure why.

First, written communication is more efficient.  Let's assume that one person expects to call a meeting with four additional attendees for a 30-minute meeting.  That's 2.5 people hours in total.

Let's now assume that the person in charge of scheduling the meeting decides, instead, to send an email.  If it's a 500-word email (a "long" email by most measures - it's 2 pages of physical text), and the person has a fairly good grasp of the subject (which isn't an unreasonable assumption if they're holding a meeting - even if it's a fact-finding meeting where they expect to ask targeted questions), then the composition phase will require about 1 hour.

That then leaves the other 4 people 2-4 minutes to read the email, for a total time of 1 hour and 16 minutes.

Of course, there are going to be follow-up responses, but responses tend to be shorter and quote original or other response text for clarity, so all respondents have a full half of the 2.5 people hours the meeting requires to respond and re-digest new information before breaking even with the original meeting's cumulative duration.

Let's now examine the fringe benefits of not holding that meeting:

• There's no additional meeting prep (though, in practice, there's usually very little meeting prep, which often leads to more confusion and further meetings to address the same issue.
• Writing helps organize your thoughts.  This means your communication is more concise and reduces the tangents that cause meetings to extend past their original boundaries or lead to follow-ups unnecessarily.
• Writing allows for asynchronous communication.  Even if there's a deadline involved, it's not typically at the end of the 30-minute meeting that just occurred.  Now, rather than being forced into attendance for a fixed period, people can address the written communication when their schedule permits.
• Furthermore, people are apt to look at written communication during times they would otherwise grumble about holding meetings, because it's less intrusive.  I hate the prospect of lunch meetings.  The one time period where I'm supposed to be allowed to organize my thoughts or decouple from the day briefly is often robbed from me.  If, instead, I'm permitted to grab a sandwich and sit down, I'm much more likely to browse the news for a few minutes and then read the pertinent email.  If I decide to go out for lunch with my friends, I can either (a) read the email while waiting for my food to arrive or (b) read it after finishing lunch, because it will only require 2-4 minutes of active thought at that time.
• This has the added benefit of allowing me time to myself rather than continuing to play on the stage of corporate theater to show that I'm the Hardest Worker Ever.  It allows me to recharge and be a better worker even if I don't win that coveted award.
• The asynchronous nature also allows readers to consume the email and think about its contents and their responses without needing to indulge the urge to say something extemporaneously just to feel included.

If the number of expected attendees increases or the duration of the meeting is expected to increase, the gains are even greater.  The reading time only adds 4 minutes to each attendee's workload rather than the 30 minutes worth of attendance.  You also don't need to fret about juggling schedules to accommodate others and, if people are working in different time zones, asynchronous communication ensures everyone can contribute.

Of course, there are times when meetings are useful.  There are even certain classes of meetings that prove useful on a consistent basis.  But, by and large, meetings are a waste of time.  However, we should examine the exceptions:

• When they fall into the small class of useful meetings (which I'll enumerate in another blog post soon).
• When it's difficult to discern the tone of written communication or when conveying the tone is important.  Things like performance reviews or disciplinary action should be handled in person (or at least in virtual person as things go now).  Even in standard communication if something is perceived as tongue in cheek when it's actually earnest (or vice versa), people may need a quick chat to verify their assumptions.  90% of the time that will be a 1-1 clarifying discussion.  The writer can then send out a corrective missive to further reinforce the point to the entire group as necessary.
• When it's difficult to solidify the point.  This may require a 1-1 meeting or a brief meeting with all attendees, but people will be better prepped after being able to read correspondence ahead of time.
• When someone struggles with writing due to language or other concerns.  Although, if that's the case, they're not likely to communicate well in a verbal setting.  I don't mean to dismiss struggles others face or imply that there's only one mode to do anything, but if one basic avenue of communication is lacking at this level, it's unlikely that another will pick up its slack.  Also, in every case I've encountered, the hesitancy is due to a lack of self-confidence not an actual dearth of skill.  Most people erroneously believe they're not good at English because they can't get all the use cases right or speak with an accent.  The truth of the matter is - no one gets English right (I very nearly came close to printing "no one gets English write.").  The formality is secondary as long as the communication is clear.

...and that's why I hate meetings.  They require a disruptive, outsized effort on everyone's part while infrequently imparting value of any sort.  Written communication may require more effort on one individual's part, but the burden on the collective is less and the information passed along is often more precise.

In the next couple of posts, I'll show examples of particular meeting types I dislike (as well as ones that I find valuable) and offer suggestions for replacements.  

Until next time, my human and robot friends.