The Biggest Corporate Time-Waster Of Them All!

I spent over 20 years of my life working for a couple of large companies, rising to a reasonably senior level before deciding it was time to jump off the corporate hamster wheel, and as anybody who knew me would freely tell you, I was rarely available on the phone when they tried to call.

Why?

Because I was always in meetings!

And that's what it felt like. Back-to-back meetings with no time to get from one to the next and be on time (I hate a lack of punctuality - that's part of the Caucasian mindset, I think).

Every meeting followed the same basic pattern, whether it was a short one (half an hour, if you were lucky, or a multi-day off-site "workshop" - that being the new word for meetings).

A few people would arrive on time, many would be late, sometimes even the person running the meeting so you couldn't even start without them, and eventually, you'd get down to business.

Which brings me to the next problem - it wasn't always clear why you'd been invited to the meeting in the first place, or what the agenda was.

And if there had been an agenda issued in advance, with preparatory information, it was a fair bet that no more than half of the attendees had had time to read it all (probably because they spent all their time in meetings, of course).

The chairperson (another modern PC term) would struggle to keep order, there'd be a vociferous minority who liked the sound of their own voice, digressions left, right and centre, and with about ten minutes to go, somebody would realise that we were running out of time, so it would then over-run.

That either annoyed people waiting for the conference room (there were never enough - because there were too many meetings!) and/or made people late for their next meeting (because few people bothered to leave a gap between these back-to-back meetings).

And the upshot of all this hot air?

Typically, there were two possible outcomes:

1. No decisions would be made, other than to agree that another meeting would be required because they'd run out of time.
2. A decision would be made, but it would probably be overturned at the very next meeting on that topic.

So, what did all of this achieve?

Sweet FA, in my opinion.

And is there a solution for this problem?

Well, apart from the oft-mentioned one of removing all chairs from meeting rooms, which isn't such a bad idea, how about:

1. Only allowing people to speak a set number of times, thus making them think more carefully about whether what they've to say is really that important or relevant.
2. Encouraging people to question their attendance and if they are not given a good enough reason, let them decline the meeting. (In theory, this was the policy at my last company, but very few people had the guts to apply it, if they even considered it).
3. Insist on an agenda being issued beforehand, and make sure you stick to it. This will, of course, require that the meeting has a defined purpose, which in itself would be a benefit.

However, in my view, the single biggest change you could make that would reduce the need for unnecessary meetings would be to actually let people make decisions. Actually, I really mean force people to make them - after all, for many of these people, that's meant to be their job.

It seems to me that one of the main reasons for meetings is as a way to avoid having to make decisions (even though that's what you may be paid for). By sharing the decision (if one is ever made) collectively, it exonerates the person who should be making it from any come-back.

In my experience at my last company, there were some criminal decisions made (and I include the word "criminal" in both its metaphoric sense and its traditional sense too - e.g. deliberately promoting and selling products that were known to be dangerous to customers), but it's hard to do anything about it when you can't point the finger at one person.

I know the trend is for a "no blame" culture, but some of these people were being paid large amounts of money and were not, in my opinion, doing their job. Sometimes you need a bit of blame to jolt people out of their apathy and complacency.

Holding people accountable for what they do (or should do) - now there's a radical concept!

The irony of it was, to me, that it was almost impossible to be penalised for doing a bad job anyway. It didn't make any difference, as far as I could see, whether you did a good job or a bad job, and I can think of several examples where a really bad decision led to enormous additional expenditure, not to mention a ton of bad press.

So, why not let these "managers" (and I use the word very loosely here) consult with the people they need to get background information, mull it over, weigh up the pros and cons, and then make a decision. (And then communicate that decision to the people who need to know and/or whom it affects, and stick to it!)

In fact, as I said above, why not insist that people make decisions if that's what they're paid to do? Because it seems to me that a company will only move forwards if it makes plenty of decisions, and if some of those are bad ones, then at least you can learn from them (but that's a whole other post for a future date).

What can you do about this?

Well, if you recognise what I've said and you feel as strongly as I do, then put your foot down and make sure the meetings you attend are worth your time.

And if you fancy a cushy job, then join a large corporate and become a professional meeting attender - it's better than working for a living!

Article courtesy of www.TheRandomBlogger.com