Why do most meetings produce so little? A simple explanation and some sensible suggestions from Andy Bounds
Regular readers will know that I hate meetings. I don’t know anyone any good who likes them, to be honest. Too often they are the refuge of those with nothing else to do.
But they are sometimes necessary, and here are some very helpful comments on why they achieve so little, from a friend and former client, Andy Bounds.
Andy is the best sales trainer I have ever met, with a hugely impressive client list.
But as you can see from reading this, he is much more than that. He is keen student and good business thinker with lots of common sense.
He starts by analysing what goes wrong very neatly:
When two people meet, they only need to have one agreement: Mr. A must agree with Mrs. B.
When four people meet, they now need six agreements – AB, AC, AD, BC, BD and CD.
When eight people meet, they need 28 agreements. Don’t worry – I won’t list them all.
When you look at it like this, is it any wonder that big meetings don’t achieve all you hoped?
People often think it helps when they invite more people to a meeting. But if you’re not careful, it just ends up deciding by committee:
- Nothing gets decided
- Even when things do get decided, it takes ages
- The noisiest person gets their way (and “noisiest” can – but doesn’t always mean – wisest)
So, reduce attendees by doing some/all of:
- Make decisions 1-2-1 as often as possible
- Only invite people who can influence the decision; and/or will make the decision better; and/or care
- Similarly, only go to meetings where you can/want to influence the decision (obviously contact the owner beforehand if you’re not going)
- If you can only contribute to agenda items 3 and 6, call the owner in advance, and ask them to change the agenda so they discuss your topics first, so you can contribute then leave
- Once a decision has been made, choose the person(s) who will run with it, and ask them to take the detail off line. This is much better than eight people having 28 (dis)agreements about it
- If appropriate, send relevant non-attendees an “Actions arising” e-mail, so they are up to speed (note: “Actions arising”, not “Topics discussed”)
As with any communications advice, remember the rule of “first, do no harm”. All the personalities and politics involved in meetings mean that you have to treat this advice sensibly.
But always remember; ideally, you should only attend a meeting because it helps you and others; not because you always have done.
Action point
Review your diary for upcoming meetings you are chairing and/or attending. What can you do to reduce the number of attendees at each of them, including – when appropriate – yourself?
If you like the sound of Andy, let me know. He and I are talking about doing a day together on how to do winning presentations. He knows more about the subject than anyone I know and I have excellent jokes.
Quite simply, if you can’t sell your ideas – in a meeting or anywhere else – you will never succeed.
As Thomas J. Watson of IBM observed, “Nothing happens in business until something gets sold.”
I would expect sense and thought provoking ideas from you and Andy Bounds so a day of the pair of you together would be an exciting prospect.
As someone who has been on too many committees I wholly concur with the sentiments in this post. When I took over the Chair of the Governing Body of a large primary school we reduced the number of Governors from 17 to 12 and the number of committees from 6 to 2. Now we spend far less time talking and much more time taking decisions. Meetings take under 2 hours where they used to take 3.5! The school has just been graded ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted and the governing body was recognised for its effectiveness. In this case we benefit from the challenge and experience of some talented individuals none of whom likes meetings for meetings sake or to challenge decisions just to make a noise. I count myself very fortunate for having such a great team and keep my fingers crossed that we can maintain the equilibrium,
When I was on the board of the Ogilvy Group we had 23 members. Soon it was sensibly reduced to a committee of five.
I’ve always used a quote from Robert Heinlein when it comes to meetings: “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.” (And “an elephant is a mouse built to government regulations!”)
I won’t attend a meeting without an agenda, and I won’t conduct a meeting without well-thought-out proposals to present. Over more than 40 years of meetings, I’ve found that, in more than 90% of cases, the proposals have been accepted unaltered and the meetings finished quickly.
Too often, people are spooked by too many decisions to be made. They want decisiveness, overwhelmingly. They want to be consulted, but they don’t want to have to take responsibility for any outcomes.
I find the lack of BS so refreshing. This is sound. Governments could learn from this, but we do know better…. Billy
I liked it. Please do share how you’re going to go about with your winning presentation. And, well…, the presentation itself. 🙂
When I thought back on my experience going to meetings (which I don’t do anymore… entrepreneur), I just had to read this article.
And the reason is because I didn’t know there could possibly be a benefit of having a meeting.
That makes sense about doing smaller meetings to get agreement.