Hack
Contribution Summary
Summary
Sometimes meetings are absolutely crucial; frequently, they are not. Why? Organizational norms and behaviours can get in the way sometimes if they aren't refreshed. So, I propose a refresher.
An anonymous voting feature built into electronic systems managing meetings/calendars. Raise 'necessity consciousness', save time, minimize disruption – enable more progress.Problem
This problem is very intuitive. Which condition is better for work: 15 five minute periods or one 75 minute period? 3 ten minute periods or one half hour period? Now, which is condition is more reflective of reality (especially for executives and senior leaders)?
The greatest threat to productivity is divided and fragmented atttention, and this is exactly what's happening. And sometimes, that's ok even necessary. But I would argue that many times it's neither.
The problem here is waste created by unecessary meetings. Productivity can be wasted in two interrelated ways:
1. More time in meetings means less time for other activities
2. More time in meetings means greater disruption of work flow
Results require progress. Progress requires time and continuity. Meetings interfere with both of these. For critical meetings, this is acceptable. For the rest, it's not.
This problem must be addressed.
The greatest threat to productivity is divided and fragmented atttention, and this is exactly what's happening. And sometimes, that's ok even necessary. But I would argue that many times it's neither.
The problem here is waste created by unecessary meetings. Productivity can be wasted in two interrelated ways:
1. More time in meetings means less time for other activities
2. More time in meetings means greater disruption of work flow
Results require progress. Progress requires time and continuity. Meetings interfere with both of these. For critical meetings, this is acceptable. For the rest, it's not.
This problem must be addressed.
Solution
The solution is to create and reinforce "necessity consciousness". The question is simple, "Is this meeting absolutely necessary?"
The answer is complex. It depends who you ask and their present context (e.g., informational needs, decision making style, personality, role, accountability, competing demands, line of sight, etc). Necessity is subjective. It will always be evaluated relative to individual context.
Therefore, you cannot start and stop at the individual level. Instead, while the question is posed individually the answer should be aggregated. The decision should be based on consensus.
I propose a simple technological adapation to current email/calendar/meeting systems (e.g., groupwise, outlook, etc). Everytime a meeting is booked, the creator and recipients are required to respond to the question posed above and select "yes", "no", or "I don't know".
The responses would be anonymously and automatically aggregated by the software. If the accepted conditions are not, the meeting is not held. An automatically generated cancellation would occur, notifying the creator and recipients and removing the time from their calendars.
The change is cultural, and it is "lived" through communication technology. The proposition is to insert one simple procedural step for every scheduled meeting (asking the question about necessity). The practice would be then to respond honestly to the question.
Here is a video I made explaining these ideas.
The answer is complex. It depends who you ask and their present context (e.g., informational needs, decision making style, personality, role, accountability, competing demands, line of sight, etc). Necessity is subjective. It will always be evaluated relative to individual context.
Therefore, you cannot start and stop at the individual level. Instead, while the question is posed individually the answer should be aggregated. The decision should be based on consensus.
I propose a simple technological adapation to current email/calendar/meeting systems (e.g., groupwise, outlook, etc). Everytime a meeting is booked, the creator and recipients are required to respond to the question posed above and select "yes", "no", or "I don't know".
The responses would be anonymously and automatically aggregated by the software. If the accepted conditions are not, the meeting is not held. An automatically generated cancellation would occur, notifying the creator and recipients and removing the time from their calendars.
The change is cultural, and it is "lived" through communication technology. The proposition is to insert one simple procedural step for every scheduled meeting (asking the question about necessity). The practice would be then to respond honestly to the question.
Here is a video I made explaining these ideas.
Practical Impact
The practical impact is the potential to raise necessity consciousness.
The first impact is cognitive, it's about mind set. Often, there is an accepted organizational norm: all meetings are necessary and mandatory by default. This is may not actually relfect what everyone privately believes, but this is what is publically observed in their behaviour. And the norm is reinforced every meeting. Absences occur only for when important professional or personal conflicts emerge.
Encouraging people to think about necessity is the first step toward change. Reactions will vary in terms of certitude and perceived value, but the question functions as a signal - let's spend our time productively. If people respond honestly, it can change the norm. "Yes, some meetings are absolutely necessary. When this isn't the case, I've got better things to do". When this type of thinking has a place, it can spill over to other activities as well. At a minimum helps foster an attitude to curb meetings for their own sake.
The second impact is behavioural. Less time in meetings means less fragmented, divided spans of time. People have more continuous time for their work. This translates into the potential for greater progress. Most objectives or goals are 'distal' - they don't happen over the span of a few days, weeks or months; rather they're much more likely to reflect an End-of-Year target. Whether or not the target is reached depends on daily or weekly activity - stuff that happens in the very short term. These 'proximal' goals are much easier to achieve if more time and attention can be devoted to them.
By raising necessity consciousness for meetings, fewer uneccessary meetings are likely to occur. The time savings translate into greater continuity and larger chunks of time available for work.
At the individual level, more undivided time is spent on work. At the team level, greater productivity generates potential for faster turn around times for projects. At a business unit level, the effects are again exponential. The greater the magnitude of hours saved, the greater the potential for the advancement of projects and objectives. Certainly, the utility is not infinitely linear, but is it is substantial enough to warrant careful consideration.
Less time in meetings means more time for other things. Importantly, this allows for more undivided time. When time savings reach tens, hundreds, or thousands of recovered hours, candidates for achievement are many.
The first impact is cognitive, it's about mind set. Often, there is an accepted organizational norm: all meetings are necessary and mandatory by default. This is may not actually relfect what everyone privately believes, but this is what is publically observed in their behaviour. And the norm is reinforced every meeting. Absences occur only for when important professional or personal conflicts emerge.
Encouraging people to think about necessity is the first step toward change. Reactions will vary in terms of certitude and perceived value, but the question functions as a signal - let's spend our time productively. If people respond honestly, it can change the norm. "Yes, some meetings are absolutely necessary. When this isn't the case, I've got better things to do". When this type of thinking has a place, it can spill over to other activities as well. At a minimum helps foster an attitude to curb meetings for their own sake.
The second impact is behavioural. Less time in meetings means less fragmented, divided spans of time. People have more continuous time for their work. This translates into the potential for greater progress. Most objectives or goals are 'distal' - they don't happen over the span of a few days, weeks or months; rather they're much more likely to reflect an End-of-Year target. Whether or not the target is reached depends on daily or weekly activity - stuff that happens in the very short term. These 'proximal' goals are much easier to achieve if more time and attention can be devoted to them.
By raising necessity consciousness for meetings, fewer uneccessary meetings are likely to occur. The time savings translate into greater continuity and larger chunks of time available for work.
At the individual level, more undivided time is spent on work. At the team level, greater productivity generates potential for faster turn around times for projects. At a business unit level, the effects are again exponential. The greater the magnitude of hours saved, the greater the potential for the advancement of projects and objectives. Certainly, the utility is not infinitely linear, but is it is substantial enough to warrant careful consideration.
Less time in meetings means more time for other things. Importantly, this allows for more undivided time. When time savings reach tens, hundreds, or thousands of recovered hours, candidates for achievement are many.
Challenges
Simply raising consciousness and weaponizing this consciousness with technological tools is not an inevitable win. There are serious challenges to consider.
First, a definition for consensus is required. Does everyone need to agree a meeting is (un)necessary? Or a majority? 50% plus one, or two thirds, or three quarters?
Second, how do you prevent 'gaming' the system? Necessary meetings could be derailed because of political misuse.
Third, should all votes be equal? Power is distributed differentially, should voting reflect this? To what extent does democracy have a legitimate place here?
Fourth, how do you prevent de-valuing the process? If people always elect to meet without critical appraisal, the process is worse than valueless. What can be done to encourage honest reflection?
Five, should anyone have a veto?
Q&A 1: Defining Consensus
100% consensus isn't necessary. Designing a one-size fits all solution is generally impossible and unnecessary and the same concept can be applied here. The goal of the process is to avoid individualizing the decision of whether or not the meeting is necessary. Requiring 100% consensus does exactly the opposite, giving each individual veto power.
Instead, I would opt for two thirds. Why 2/3? Requiring a 50% plus majority may polarize decision 'camps', creating a "we're only here because of you" atmosphere. By making the majority larger, it gives the impression that most believe in the necessity of the meeting. Here, the goal is being achieved. If most people honestly feel the meeting is necessary, than it probably is.
Rather than subscribe to a precise ratio, I'd urge a qualification. If any one person can swing the process, then it's overly sensitive. 100% violates this principle. In very small groups (e.g., 3 people) simply having a quick conversation about necessity is probably more useful and productive than adhering to a static rule.
Q&A 2: Preventing Misuse
Major Obstacles:
Imagine a departmental meeting invitation is sent. A recent organizational change has adversely affected staff, and as a means of expressing their upset staff decides to turn down all managerial or supervisory initiated meetings. What do you do?
The problem here is that some important communications need to happen. Asking employees about necessity is the wrong approach. There are certain boundary conditions were meetings shouldn't be optional. For example, these would probably include change management, senior leader strategic updates, and labour relations communications.
It's important to understand why employees may want to "game" the system. A vote is a means of control. Control may be misused when employees feel they have no other recourse to protest perceived inequity, undesirable conditions, etc.
Preventing misuse relates to how employees are treated in other respects. By default, there is no reason to expect employees to misuse their votes. However, if there is a context of inequity where employees feel they are being treated unfairly for one reason or many this signals a greater need to explore those issues.
If the environment is too poisonous for employees to effectively use the tool, then there are larger issues present that need to be addressed.
Minor Obstacles:
if there are no larger lurking themes of discontent, but trouble is localized to a particular team or group - I would encourage tackling the problem openly. Hold a town hall to understand why so many meetings are deemed unnecessary. A supervisor or manager may be able to address a relatively simple misperception or misgiving.
Well-positioned, open, safe and transparent communication is essential. Attempts to overpower the problem without discussing it will only force the issue underground, not only defeating the process but diverting the real problem to reappear elsewhere (in addition to setting the tone that discussion is unwelcome).
Q&A 3: Equal Voting Rights
Should some votes be more equal than others? I think the answer depends on organizational culture. However, with the possible exception of some geographies with different accepted social norms, by default I would not encourage it. The problem is that while it may be positioned as an honest reflection of power distribution within the organization it is unlikely to be interpreted favourably by employees.
Asking for employee votes only to give them a vote of lesser relative worth risks employee engagement by violating perceptions of equity. It is very likely to be perceived as too Orwellian in nature, despite available rationale. The concept of a vote immediately associates itself with a sense of equality; violating this sense risks corrupting employee belief and perception.
The second problem is that it makes the voting process much less transparent and procedurally evident. With differential weightings of various votes, a layer of confusion is added. If the process isn't perceived as a useful, equitable means of conveying an honest evaluation then it fails to achieve its goal.
Q&A 4: Ensuring Added Value
Much like a survey, if the responses aren't honest reflections the outcomes and process are valueless. The process of evaluating meeting necessity only has value if the responses are honest reflections from each individual.
Many organizations target certain strategic priorities. Typically, one of these relates to operational efficiency. I would suggest setting an OE goal to identify the number of unnecessary meetings, and keep an easy monthly measure of meeting necessity (e.g., retained meetings / all proposed meetings). This could then be easily translated into hours saved.
By creating an organizational OE goal to recover time and use some simple measures, the process of evaluating meeting necessity becomes valuable.
What's important is to establish baselines which are context sensitive. Some groups may need to meet more than others. An organization-wide goal to cut 30% of meetings may not make sense, and represents a misuse of the tool. Instead, establish baselines and give liberty to set specific context relevant goals. Non-monetary rewards and recognition celebrating successes further augments perceived value around the activity.
Q&A 5: Veto?
First, when you conceptualize veto you have to clarify what is meant. Is it meant to rest with a single individual? Do certain individuals receive a certain quantity of vetoes? Does it rotate?
After awhile, it starts to sound like a UN meeting or a board game. Remember, the goal is to avoid unnecessary meetings. The concept of veto is ultimately about trust. Do you trust the majority to accurately decide what is necessary and what isn't?
If you don't trust the individuals using the process, I would urge you to address that before initiating the process. If it can't be addressed or won't be addressed, it's safer to avoid using the process. Regularly vetoing decisions will lead to negative perceptions about the process, which probably leads to the same results as what was happening before the process was implemented.
If you do trust the individuals using the process, I would consider putting the question to them. What do they think about having a veto? How would they see it working? If there is a lack of consensus, I would forego having a veto. Fundamentally, you trust the group. I'd let that be your starting point. If the group agrees on a veto process, then I'd encourage a test phase - some agreed upon period of time. Revisit the process afterward, and adjust or discontinue as it suits your group.
First Steps
A quick and dirty version requires a very trusting team, or a moderately trusting and a facilitator (an HR or Talent Management individual). As discussed briefly in the challenges, a low trust team should explore and address existing challenges.
1. The team is asked to review their calendar of past meetings, and if anything jumps out as memorably unnecessary make a note of it. Don't bust your brain here, but if something leaps to mind, note it. (15m max)
2. The team meets to review (1) and then look at future scheduled meetings. For each meeting the same vote is applied "Is this meeting absolutely necessary". The idea would be for everyone to privately record a "yes" or "no" on a piece of paper, fold it so it's not visible, and then put it in the center of the table.
3. Tally up the votes. For each time there is any "no" vote, probe and discuss. Capture the rationale.
4. Collect the results.
5. For each new meeting, the creator must be certain the meeting is absolutely necessary.
5a. Alternative: use a website where a quick and simple vote can be created and tallied.
5b. Alternative: Set an OE goal to reduce the number of meetings by asking and answering if the meeting is absolutely necessary.
5c. Combine any or all of 5, 5a, and 5b.
6. Audit (1-4) again after 6-8 weeks for all the new meetings.
7. For the 2nd, 3rd, etc audit. Ask what's working well? What isn't? Poll: Are unnecessary meetings still happening? What can be done?
Consider two versions, one without the manager or supervisor and one with this person.
Credits
I would like to credit this idea to having enough undivided time for ideation.
Helpful Materials
Documents:
- No documents at this time
Images:
- No images at this time
Videos:
- No videos at this time
Comments
Geoff Barbaro
August 7, 2011 at 7:42pmG'day Sean, I think the comments from others reflect some of my concerns. For further development, you may want to consider incorporating ideas from a system I have used in organisations before.
Not all meetings are designed to make decisions, but often that’s what we expect. So change the expectations. One method for changing expectations is for every meeting request to be identified by using one of the following words:
Decision – The primary purpose is to make a decision
Evaluation – The primary purpose is to review, report and evaluate completed actions or progress
Ideas – the primary purpose is to find new ideas, brainstorm or get new perspectives on something you are working on
Information – the primary purpose is to provide information to your colleagues
This is really easy to do with electronic meeting requests – just use one of these words as the first word of the subject line followed by the topic. Perhaps combining your idea with something like this may address some of the concerns.
Cheers, Geoff
Jon Ingham
July 18, 2011 at 11:17amIsn't the need regarding meetings to have better meetings rather than just less meetings? After all, web 2.0 is in many ways a big, ongoing meeting!
The problem then is that some people are going to duck out of most meetings where many of these are actually very important in building common values and culture etc.
It's a bit of a prisoners' dilemma - each individual benefits from not being in a meeting but the organisation as a whole suffers as there's no cohesion.
Terri Griffith
July 11, 2011 at 4:23pmSaw the title on twitter and had to see the hack. An added angle: Rather than just yes, no, maybe; how about an option to propose a specific form to meet the stated goal? "Let's do it as a poll" "phone call" "lunch" "long working session" etc. Like the auditing feature as well.
Michele Zanini
June 6, 2011 at 6:58amLove this hack, Sean--it's both radical and practical. Had a few "builds" and questions for you to consider as you expand this further:
1. Does this system apply to specific types of meetings (e.g., ad hoc vs. planned)?
2. How would you prevent "gaming" of the system--e.g., people forming voting blocks to either force or prevent certain types of meetings? For instance:
a. making votes to hold or not hold meetings two-thirds vs. simple majority;
b. giving people a set number of down votes over the course of a month/year;
c. or making votes an indication of preference vs. the determinants of a binding result.
3. Would it make sense to expand the system to collect feedback on meetings that have just ended, so that valuable information is gathered on improving the effectiveness of future meetings?
4. If you had the resources to launch a targeted management "experiment" on the system within your company, how would it look like (e.g., would you target specific groups? Would you focus on certain types of functionalities first)?
Thanks again for submitting this idea--look forward to seeing it grow in the coming weeks!
Michele
Sean Schofield
June 7, 2011 at 5:44amHi Michele,
Thank you very much for your feedback. I agree with you that the meat is missing, and should be present.
A collaborative idea refinement engine type process (perhaps another hack itself - what if idea ownership was the greatest threat to idea development? Perhaps the fundamental obstacle is individual recognition...anyways) would probably lead to the best and most interesting outcomes.
In any event, 'll take a crack at it none-the-less.
Thank you again for the gentle prod, feedback and encouragement :)
Sean
What is the MIX?
Announcing the first-ever MIX live event:
the MIX Mashup—a day-long gathering of the vanguard of management innovators.
Meet the pioneering leaders, courageous experimenters, and agenda-setting thinkers who have taken on the status quo (and won)—and leave inspired and equipped to make an impact in your own organization.
We are opening up this limited-capacity event to the MIX community. Apply to attend here.
More Hacks Like This
MIX Pulse
Submit a Hack
Help invent the future of management. Propose a radical fix and see your idea take root and grow.
Paul Caswell
August 9, 2011 at 12:51pm"It was the best of time, it was the worst of times" - A Tale of Two Meetings!! I have been most productive in great meetings and wasted a lot time in poor meetings.
Thanks Sean for this Hack! I share your passionate belief that technology can help and I hope we never lose touch with power of human face-to-face interactions.
Can technology help people decide if a meeting is needed? Maybe, let's look further into the this question...
As some of the comments also reflect, I think we need to distinguish various types of meetings. How do you categorize meetings? Can this system be used for all meetings? What do all meetings have in common?
I'll throw out some personal test cases:
When I worked as a developer, every morning we checked in with the team at a 10 minute 'Stand Up' meeting - everyone answers 3 questions: "What did you do yesterday?"; "What are doing today?"; "Is there anything in you way?".
When I worked as an Enterprise Architect, I would facilitate a project vision consensus meeting, between tech leads, managers and business stakeholders - this would often take a 2-3 hours. Resulting in a visual representation of what was to be built, why it was important and clarified roles and responsibilities of the team (the how and who).
I have attended problem-solving meetings where it was clear than only the most senior people had the floor, and subject matter experts, were asked specific questions and not invited to ask open questions.
I have attended brain-storming sessions where lots of creative ideas emerged and none of them were ever implemented.
... all of them have one easy thing to measure ... cost:
time * number of people
or to be more specific: The sum of [ (meeting time * hourly rate) + (time to resume productive work * hourly rate) ]
or to be more ambitious: The sum of [ (meeting time * hourly value of productive work) + (time to resume productive work * hourly value of productive work) ]
For a developer it can take 20-30 minutes to get back into a productive zone, after even a small distraction.
... all of them have an often overlooked and tricky to measure aspect ... value.
I'm not sure people can 'vote' on the meeting unless they know the value - I'm open to this becoming more intuitive as your proposed solution is repeatedly used, but I'd like to throw out an alternative to see what you think...
Could we use a simple technical solution for estimating the cost of the meeting - and more importantly making it visible?
I'm now making an assumption, the meeting has a leader responsible for a meeting (even the daily stand-up has been scheduled by the project leader).
Now, here is the tricky part, the leader has to estimate the Value of the meeting and ensure that it is greater than the cost. Rather than make it easy for someone to suggest a meeting and have people vote, make it harder! Hopefully this would reduce the number of unnecessary meetings at the source, provide more thoughtful objectives and then communicate clearly the value and objectives - your solution could do this. Only after this has been clarified, could you then invite people to contribute their time by attending the meeting.
Rather than vote whether the meeting happens or not, each individual could asses whether their contribution to the value of the meeting or what they may learn from the meeting, is greater than their cost. If it not - chose of opt-out and work alone.
Sean, thank you for you thoughtful Hack and encouraging this valuable conversation.
Cheers
Paul