Running effective meetings

Let's take these one by one.

Purpose

One way or another, a meeting’s primary task is normally to make decisions or have discussions.

Meetings also have social impact – they can support, engage or frustrate team members, and build or fragment a sense of community. This is often an ‘unintended consequence’ of the main task discussion and how it is handled, but some teams build a social task explicitly into a meeting’s purpose. An example would be a short slot at the beginning of a weekly team meeting where people are invited to share a brief personal or work-related reflection.

The measure of success of your meeting is whether the appropriate decisions get made, constructive discussions are held, and the overall social impact is positive. Clear objectives improve performance, so the objective for each item should be clearly stated.

Making decisions

The decisions made in a meeting can arise from a wide range of sources – from regular reviews of performance, to solving specific problems, to planning next month’s work – but the hallmark of a decision item is that a decision to take action can, and will, be made at the meeting. For example, the decision may be to change a process in order to improve performance, to delegate responsibility to a team member to solve the specific problem, or to consult with customers on a potential new product. But it cannot be a decision item if the person authorised to make the decision is not present.

Discussion

This can be anything from an early stage discussion of an emerging opportunity or threat, a creative problem-solving discussion, through to a team leader inviting the team’s views on a decision that will be made somewhere else. In practice it also often covers a ‘catch-up’ information exchange where team members give a quick review of what they are working on.

Social impact

There is clear evidence that active participation in decision-making and discussion influences how effective people feel the meeting was, and improves people’s engagement and job satisfaction.

People are also more likely to get involved if they feel the meeting has been set up and is being run well.

So two fairly simple actions that we discuss below can improve both the effectiveness of meetings, and their positive psychological impact – organize the meeting effectively, and make sure you encourage everyone to contribute. You do not want ‘first and loudest’ syndrome, with the same voices dominating the meeting each time and the same people staying silent.

It is worth noting that the larger the meeting, the lower the levels of involvement and effectiveness people report, so if you are going to involve more than ten people you will need to find specific ways to engage them. Larger groups just cannot function effectively as decision-making teams in the normal sense of the word, and it may well be seen as dishonest to suggest they are, giving the pretence of influence over decisions when in reality there is none.

Who should attend?

To make the decision-making or discussion as effective as possible, have only the people you need in the room. (Big Silicon Valley companies famously have a “Two pizzas feeds everyone” rule). That will keep costs to a minimum, too.

In very general terms, research suggests 5 – 8 people to be an ideal number in order to bring in the expertise and diversity of thinking you need without incurring the ‘transaction costs’ of a larger group. Between them, they should have the authority, power and influence to deliver any decisions made in the meeting.

You may want your meeting to have a social impact beyond just efficient decision-making, though, so you will need to balance the desire to include some extra people against the cost and potential detriment to effective decision-making that the extra members might bring.

For how long?

No clear picture emerges from the evidence on how long an ideal meeting should last. An open discussion with team members about the ideal length of time for your particular meeting is possibly the best way forward. Sticking to stated start and end times does increase people’s perceptions of effectiveness, though.

There is a current fashion for keeping meetings short, sharp and to the point (eg 5 -10 minute ‘micro-meetings’; setting the default time in the organisation for meetings to 15 minutes; Google’s timer clock visible in the room counting down to the meeting’s end). But these guidelines could be specifically appropriate to Silicon Valley or digitally-focussed businesses.

However, short meetings clearly cost less than longer meetings, and there is evidence that ‘stand-up’ meetings shorten meetings by 25% with no perceived deterioration in decision quality.

Structure

There is clear evidence that having an agenda for the meeting, and sending it out in time for people to prepare before the meeting improves the meeting’s effectiveness. The objective of the item, whether it is for decision or discussion, and any background papers should be included. (Amazon have an interesting way to make sure the agenda and material are read before a meeting – the first thirty minutes of the meeting are spent in silence while people read the background papers).

Running the meeting

Your aim is to have a meeting that is effective from the task point of view – ie a decisions are made and/or a constructive discussion takes place - and has a positive social impact – ie people feel satisfied with the meeting. Research shows that if people think the meeting has been effective from the task point of view, that goes a long way to helping them to feel psychologically satisfied too. But you can increase their satisfaction further by showing fairness, respect for all team members and encouraging people to contribute.

Sending out the agenda beforehand, meeting in a suitable place, starting and finishing the meeting on time, with all the agenda items covered have all been shown to lead to more active involvement and greater satisfaction.

You have four key tasks: