Food for thought

“The only people who don’t revile meetings are those who call and/or speak most in meetings.”

(Lortie et al, 2019 referencing Kello, 2015)

 

The importance of meetings

Meetings are an inherently social process and “increased well being of employees through the process of meetings is a non-trivial benefit given the frequency and proportion of time associated with this activity in most professional contexts”. (Lortie et al., 2019)

 

Meeting load and effectiveness

Meetings remain an integral part of many people’s working life, from which meaning is derived and through which information is shared and decisions are negotiated (Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock & Rogelberg, 2015).

There is scant evidence that satisfaction with meetings is improving (Allen et al., 2015).

Employees spend significant time in meetings, though estimates vary greatly. In a summary of previous studies, Panko suggests 20% of working time is spent in meetings (1992). In another study, the upper estimate is 75% (Mackenzie & Nickerson, 2009).

Given the ubiquity of meetings in the workplace (Monge et al., 1989), the high proportion of time they consume, particularly for managers (Mintzberg, 1973) and their perceived mediocrity (Green & Lazarus, 1991),

Meetings account for 7-15% of most org’s personnel budget: (Romano & Nunamaker, 2001)

Meeting time hasn’t reduced despite improvements in technology as previously predicted by Lantz (2001), Shin and Higa (2005) and Sproull and Kiesler (1992).

Why?

Flatter org structures - Rogelberg et al. (2007)

Shift from individual jobs to complex workflow systems (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006, p. 78)

Meetings are essential:

They are also an essential contributor to organisational sense-making (Schwartzman, 1989) and “set the tone for employees’ workdays and shape their workplace experiences more generally” (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2016, p. 1294).

They are less effective than they should be:

As many as half of workplace meetings were rated as ineffective (Rogelberg et al., 2011).

Dysfunctional meeting behaviours are linked to reduced org effectiveness several years on (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

But when managers use meetings effectively, they can develop or support the psychological conditions for employee engagement (Allen & Rogelberg, 2013). But attending meetings that employees perceive as ineffective may relate both to how emotionally exhausted they feel and also whether they plan to leave the company (Shanock et al., 2013).

 

The collaborative era
(and how the way we see organisations has changed)

We used to view organisations as closed, rational, goal-seeking machines for coordinated completion of well-defined tasks at scale (Simon, 1957; Khandwalla, 1977; Pfeffer, 1978).

Social System Theory posited that organisations were made up of people in relationship with one another, and that those relationships were crucial to the success of the organisation (Barnard, 1938).

Silverman (1970) helped to explain how individuals shape others’ experiences at work using the actions frame of reference which describes how individuals’ actions impact the way in which others attribute meaning to the world.

Meyer and Rowan’s institutional perspective on organisations suggested that organisations are not semi-rational actors seeking the best course of action, but instead obey the cultural norms (or ‘myths’) in that setting, for fear of losing social legitimacy and therefore power and access to resources (1977).

McLuhan and Powers’ (1989) exposition of the global village, in their book of the same name, explains how technology is drawing people and markets together and highlights the resultant clash between the rational, Western view of organisations where power is held centrally by few, versus the holistic, qualitative approach of the East, where power is distributed across many voices.

Checkland (1994, p. 81) asserts that, “It is the argument here that this goal-seeking model, largely adequate as it was in the management science that contributed to post-Second World War industrial development, is not rich enough to support and sustain the management thinking now needed by the crew of Spaceship Earth, that spaceship having become akin to a global village”.

More and more organisations are achieving goals through large multi-team projects such as those required to achieve speed-to-market for high quality innovations (Hoegl & Weinkauf, 2005) and this has required an increase in collaborative working. It’s argued that, “Coordination becomes much more difficult as project size and complexity increase” (Kraut & Streeter, 1995, p. 69).

Furthermore, over the course of large-scale projects, previously unknown interdependencies emerge, requiring changes to coordination mechanisms (Moe et al., 2018).

Collaboration is costly and burdensome, consuming resources through communication, such as talking on the phone and sending and responding to emails. Together with meetings, these activities can occupy up to 95% of the working day, forcing employees to catch up on non-collaborative work at home in the evenings (Cross & Gray, 2013).

Cost of context switching (González & Mark, 2004)

Difficulty in completing ‘deep work’, where intense and unbroken concentration is needed to solve demanding problems (Newport, 2016).

 

Design and experimentation

There is a critical need for experimentation in meetings (Lortie et al., 2019) both for the benefits of novelty and the search for better practices.

Use design thinking (Burdick and Willis, 2011; Dorst, 2011) and test different configurations of people and place (Brown, 2008).

 

Social contracting

Get agreement on the meeting mechanisms before the meeting begins with all participants (Reiter-Palmon & Sands, 2015).

 

Purpose

Meaning and purpose are an important compontent of interactions at work (Meyer & Maltin 2010; Meyer et al. 2002). For every meeting, define its purpose and function (Forsetlund et al., 2009).

“Even if the explicit purpose of meeting is not ideation, we use ideas to solve problems and manage systems (Herrmann 2010; Hunter, Bedell & Mumford 2009; Loehle 1990).” Lortie et al., 2019

 

Facilitation and meeting leadership

The meeting leader sets the tone (Schuleigh et al., 2019).

“The importance of leadership cannot be overstated and can make or break the meeting” (Mroz, Yoerger & Allen 2018).

Flow and momentum are important components of acts of productivity including meetings (Liew et al., 2019). We need a flow state that embraces complexity, but does not max out cognitive load of participants (Pacauskas & Rajala, 2017). “Procedural communication” in meetings maintains flow momentum and avoid topical drift within the agreed upon framework (Lehmann-Willenbrock, Allen & Kauffeld, 2013).

The role of meeting leaders is to support prosocial behaviours (Liu et al., 2016).

Make it possible for all attendees to participate, as needed (Malouff et al., 2012) and when appropriate (Allen & Rogelberg, 2013).

Use leadership to increase meeting performance (Lortie et al., 2019) A single leader per meeting is usually most effective (Roman et al., 2012).

 

Group size

Larger groups are generally less effective (Boivie et al. 2016) - the exception being innovation meetings where more creative interactions yield better results (Lortie et al., 2019). The key here is to build in effective processes for the larger group size to interact effectively (Lortie et al., 2019). Team size should always be experimented with contextually (Dennis & Wixom, 2002).

 

Ecosystem of meeting communication

Develop a vocabulary for functions within meetings - this shared language leads to better synchrony (Yu, Zhou & Nakamura, 2013).

 

Capturing the outcome

Develop ways, whether digital or analogue to “retain content and ideas” (Macaulay & Alabdulkarim, 2005; Sibbet, 2010).

Define a clear, easy way for sharing the outcomes of the meeting (Lortie et al., 2019)

 

 

Bibliography