by: Steve Kaye
Perhaps you have wondered why anyone would hold a meeting that wastes everyone’s time and produces nothing.
There are easy answers to this question, such as 1) they don’t know that their meetings could be effective, 2) they don’t know what an effective meeting is like, or 3) they don’t know how to hold an effective meeting.
But what about all of the executives who know how to plan and organize and run an effective business, but still hold bad meetings?
So, let’s dig deeper. These executives actually want to hold bad meetings because they prove to be useful. Here’s how.
1) They provide refuge.
Bad meetings provide a sophisticated form of executive busyness. Some people find this useful because it keeps them from having to work on difficult tasks such as planning, coaching, learning, and communicating. Compared to these difficult tasks, sitting in a conference room is easy. In fact, it is so easy that a six-year old could do it, assuming you could convince the child to stay inside for such a pointless activity.
Better: An effective meeting is business activity where people work together.
2) They avoid responsibility.
Bad meetings never end with decisions, which means that no one ends up being held responsible for doing anything. Some people find this useful because responsibility implies accountability and accountability requires results. Thus, without responsibility there is no failure and everyone appears to perform well. This masks poor performance so that everyone continues to receive raises and promotions, even when they accomplish nothing because (you guessed it) they spent all of their time sitting in meetings.
Better: Effective meetings produce decisions that someone is responsible for implementing.
3) They provide excitement.
Bad meetings feature all of the elements of a good drama, such as conflict, tension, and pain. For example, the participants deliver self-aggrandizing reports, denigrate their colleagues, and engage in politics. Some really terrible meetings play out like pathetic battlegrounds with verbal gladiators battling for favors while the boss watches.
Better: Effective meetings occur in a safe environment of respect.
4) They serve food.
Bad meetings become an enviable executive perk when they provide snacks, coffee, and (sometimes) meals. The attendees then use eating to offset the boredom of having to hear meaningless discussions. It also saves them the expense of having to buy food.
Better: Meals should be a separate activity used to build relationships and (sometimes) rest.
5) They entertain.
Bad meetings resemble a party. People tell stories, trade jokes, and argue over trivia. Some meetings feature comedy performances by the office fool. Others feature humorous belittlements by the office bully. And if neither of these occurs, the absolutely unbelievable discussions amaze and entertain everyone.
Better: Effective meetings use process tools to make methodical progress toward results.