Member-only story
I hate long (and pointless) meetings!
This is why whenever I chair meetings, I always: (a) keep my meetings to less than one hour; (b) only include the people who are needed (versus good to have); and (c) keep discussions on point.
I believe I owe it to my colleagues to respect their time and make my meetings efficient and effective. My personal indicator of when I am failing is when someone in my meeting starts to work on their laptop. When this happens, the person is no longer present and this is a clear indication that what is being discussed is not important or relevant to them.
Digitalization and the ability to have hybrid meetings have exacerbated the problem. Without the limit of meeting room size, it is now not uncommon for meetings to comprise 70 to 100 participants. I came across a study that said: “To make a decision, involve four to seven people. The likelihood of arriving at a good decision decreases 10% for every meeting participant over seven. By the time you reach 17 participants, the chances of a meeting actually making a decision is zero.”
To me, having a large (or long meeting) does not make a meeting important. What is discussed, the participation of the participants present, and the quality of the conversation, does.
