Here’s something a bit lighter for your Friday morning: Scott Rasmussen’s Number of the Day series on Ballotpedia from 23 January 2019 claims that, in a 40-hour workweek, Americans spend an average of 11.8 hours of that time in meetings. That’s over two hours a day, and over 25% of the entire week!
Despite all that time in meetings, Rasmussen writes that “just 54% of workers leave most meetings with a clear idea of what to do next.” That’s not a ringing endorsement for meetings.
Every fiber of my being is anathema to lengthy, tedious meetings, of any kind. My time is precious (and valuable—it comes at ~$50/hour for private lessons), and I rarely need someone telling me out loud what could have been sent in an e-mail. With rare exceptions, I almost always believe that time spent in a meeting could be spent more efficiently working on my own.
Apparently I’m not alone. From Rasmussen:
The biggest problem workers have with meetings is that many of them are unnecessary. Seventy-six percent (76%) of workers have experienced that frustration. Also high on the list are meetings that don’t stay on topic (59%) and repetition of things that have already been said (58%).
The precise cost of ineffective meetings is impossible to quantify, but estimates range from $70 billion to $283 billion each year.
So not only are meetings ineffective, unnecessary, repetitious, and frequently off-topic, they’re potentially expensive in terms of productivity.
Of course, these numbers coming from a poll, it could be that workers merely perceive meetings to be ineffective and unclear—and they feel it’s okay to admit as such to a pollster—but this data rings true.
There are those who thrive in meetings, either in the roles of leaders or attendees. Some enjoy preening in front of a group—the busybody types who seek out power, the narcissists who want some fluorescently-accented limelight—and some who like to use meetings as a forum to demonstrate their own cleverness. For a small few, they need the opportunity to ask questions, either out of a genuine need for additional information, or because they want to virtue-signal to their colleagues.
In recent years, I’ve come to suspect that a large chunk of our workforce consists of people who essentially have meetings and push paper for a living. With an average of 11.8 hours of meetings per week, this suspicion seems to be gaining concrete support: that’s an awful lot of time in which to justify your position’s existence. I imagine public sector bureaucrats at the federal level inflate that number, and not insubstantially (remember that the next time a conservative seeks to cut funding to some government program, and progressives wail—they’re crying about the lost make-work job, not the people who allegedly benefit from the program). Regardless, just as the bureaucracy expands for the sake of its own self-preservation, it seems that meetings expand to justify their hosts’ jobs.
When dealing with specific technical questions or getting a quote on some expensive piece of equipment or installation, yes, meetings are important and necessary. Long-term strategy planning requires regular meetings, and a weekly administrative meeting to set goals for the week and to review what’s coming up on the calendar is a prudent idea. But rambling, two-hour meetings stretch to the point of ineffectiveness—no one can focus, people need to use the bathroom, and the original thread is probably long-since lost down a rabbit hole of objections and side topics.
So, here are my practical guidelines for effective meetings:
- No more than one hour for infrequent or monthly meetings, but ideally, thirty minutes in length, tops.
- Have a clear-cut agenda with maybe two or three items; don’t have ten agenda items that you know you won’t be able to cover adequately
- Be willing to table important items that are not time-sensitive, with a plan to revisit them later.
- Explain as much as possible via e-mail in advance. In my experience, if you send a good e-mail in advance, you can wrap up a meeting in fifteen minutes—you’re mainly meeting at that point to confirm that everyone knows what’s going on, and to address any lingering questions and to clarify certain points.
I generally follow these guidelines when I’m required to hold a department meeting, and they make for smooth, quick, efficient meetings.
As a rather solitary worker, I tend to forget that some people want or need more direction—my whole career I’ve just figured stuff out as it’s come up—so I understand the necessary evil of meetings. That said, I also value other people’s time.
So, the next time you schedule a meeting, make it quick. People have real work to do.
7 thoughts on “Meetings are (Usually) a Waste of Time”
[…] the idea of taking more time for family and personal edification (as a good deal of the workweek is wasted in meetings and busy […]
[…] “Meetings are (Usually) a Waste of Time” – This piece looked at a Rasmussen Number of the Day that claimed that Americans spend 11.5 hours a week in meetings. What a waste. I have way too much important stuff to do without some petty tyrant showing off his or her power to make me sit in a crowded room. […]
[…] begin by writing that, as much as I hate meetings, I love conferences—if they are done well. I’m not one for the big flashy super […]
[…] “Meetings are (Usually) a Waste of Time” – One way I know that I’m getting old is that I’ve developed my own “best practices” for meetings. I’ve sat through tons of pointless, lengthy meetings (and pointlessly lengthy ones), so I’ve come up approaches I attempt to stick to with meetings I run: keep ’em short, limit it to two or three agenda items, and come in organized. […]
[…] it in Friday IV: Conferencing” – I hate meetings. I’ve been in enough of them to know that they are typically a soul-sucking waste of time, […]
[…] https://theportlypolitico.com/2019/01/25/meetings-are-usually-a-waste-of-time/ […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link, Matt!