The most common meeting that occurs in organizations should not actually happen, at least not in the form it usually takes. As a rule, update or information-sharing meetings are a big waste of precious time in organizations. Using other mediums with a defined structure for sharing information is both more efficient and more sensible.
There is one more reason to hold meetings, but it is best done only in conjunction with the good reasons you mention. That is to build camaraderie and culture.
As I mentioned, culture building is best done in conjunction with other reasons. It would never be the primary reason. I just think culture building is an important component of effective meetings.
Really nice case for not having meetings. I just recently wrote a guide deep diving into asynchronous collaboration on my substack. I feel like it's time people stop defaulting to meetings assuming it's the only way to make meaningful decisions.
Thank you. I concur, meetings need to have a purpose and generally not be about information sharing. I think there are two exceptions. One is when a new process is about to jump off so everyone can get their questions answered collectively and correctly. The second is something new needs to be discussed, or something which is not working needs to be discussed. This actually means the person leading the meeting needs to make it more than information.
Loom and Slack voice notes (or something comparable) are incredible tools for info and updates. It's a bit of a habit shift, but it saves significant time once embraced!
We took time to unpack this one a bit more in a 15 minute discussion here:
https://twitter.com/AdmiredLeaders/status/1713919967756755435
There is one more reason to hold meetings, but it is best done only in conjunction with the good reasons you mention. That is to build camaraderie and culture.
How often are your meetings called where culture-building is the primary reason it was organized, Jim? Do you have a regular cadence for those?
As I mentioned, culture building is best done in conjunction with other reasons. It would never be the primary reason. I just think culture building is an important component of effective meetings.
Understood. So nothing that might go by the name "team building" either?
I appreciate the emphasis on time. The one resource we never get back.
I appreciate yours.
Always glad to see your thoughtful commentary, Joe.
Really nice case for not having meetings. I just recently wrote a guide deep diving into asynchronous collaboration on my substack. I feel like it's time people stop defaulting to meetings assuming it's the only way to make meaningful decisions.
Would love to read ...
Hey Monika, you can find it on my publication called Under My Turban if you click on my name and go to my profile.
Thank you. I concur, meetings need to have a purpose and generally not be about information sharing. I think there are two exceptions. One is when a new process is about to jump off so everyone can get their questions answered collectively and correctly. The second is something new needs to be discussed, or something which is not working needs to be discussed. This actually means the person leading the meeting needs to make it more than information.
Leaders being prepared for their own meetings they call is probably the most common offense. Thanks, Art.
Loom and Slack voice notes (or something comparable) are incredible tools for info and updates. It's a bit of a habit shift, but it saves significant time once embraced!