Meetings, as we know them, will die.

Ah, the meeting…

• They happen in every organisation around the world.
• They are used as the primary way of communicating, sharing knowledge, and delegating responsibilities to move projects forward.
• They have been around for centuries.
• They are the bane of our existence and the butt of our jokes at the office.

The History of the Meeting

Since the early 1950s meetings became a catalyst for keeping an organisation aligned. Managers would present strategic decisions and directions for the rest of the employees to follow, and employees would update their managers on their progress.

Over the past 50-plus years, we have worked hard to improve our meetings, to keep them shorter, actionable, and directed. Today, meetings have developed into a forum for consensus, delegation and involvement. Employees are now heavily involved in the decision-making process and everyone expects to have a seat at the table to have their voice heard.

The interesting aspect of this observation is that the information we share and discuss have changed significantly, but the meeting style has not.

Back then, meetings were looked at as a one-way communication channel from the senior leadership to the rest of the company, which made it an efficient way to distribute direction.

Today the end goal is to derive consensus and promote involvement. However, these changes have made meetings more time-consuming and arguably less productive.

An Expensive Problem

25 million meetings are held every day in the US alone. It is estimated that around 15% of an organisation’s collective time is spent in meetings, which is a number that keeps increasing (Inc, 2014).

With significant numbers like this, one would assume that this organisational tool has been optimised to work for everyone. However, research suggests that between 25% and 50% of all meetings are poor (Yoerger, 2015 & Ravn, 2007).

In fact, it has been estimated that ineffective and unproductive meetings cost U.S. businesses $37 billion every year (Sheridan, 1989; Sisco, 1993).

The full cost of wasted resources is not limited to monetary terms but also extends to less favorable employee perceptions of the work environment, less positive job attitudes, lower job satisfaction, and higher intentions to quit (Leach et al., 2009).

Where are all the inefficiencies coming from?

The Konch team looked through an trove of historical data and research on the topic, and to make sure we understood the problem more intimately, we asked industry leaders questions of our own.

We interviewed 15 pioneering companies across industry sectors including

• Facebook
• Google
• Airbnb
• Stack Overflow
• Typeform
• Skyscanner
• SurveyMonkey
• Merrill Lynch
• Adidas.

Our research has led us to the only possible conclusion: the archaic form of in-person, real-time meetings will (and must) die.

We’ve decided to help foster a new generation of interaction at the workplace.

One that is not built upon our traditions, but built from the ground up informed by the mistakes of our past.

In our next post will outline the 5 issues and patterns we discovered one by one. In the meantime if you want to learn more about Konch you can see what we do for HR teams here and Remote teams here.

Sources (if you like that stuff):

Montini, L. (2014). What Unproductive Meetings Are Costing You (Infographic). [online] Inc.com. Available at: https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/infographic/the-ugly-truth-about-meetings.html

Yoerger, M., Crowe, J., & Allen, J. A. (2015, January 12). Participate or else! The Effect of Participation in Decision Making in Meetings Related to Employee Engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research.

Ravn, I. (2007). Meetings in organizations: Do they contribute to stakeholder value and personal meaning? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual, Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

Sheridan, J. H. (1989, September 4). A $37 billion waste. Industry Week, 238, 11–12.

Sisco, R. (1993, February). What to teach team leaders. Training, 30, 62–67.

Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24.