If your meetings feel like a waste of time, adding more meetings isn’t the answer. A better fix is focusing on decision-making.
Nothing quite triggers a collective exhale like the “ding” of a canceled meeting. These days, people have come to dread meetings. It’s no wonder companies are getting creative in their attempts to revamp them, from starting with coloring sessions to holding them on basketball courts (while shooting hoops) and more.
But injecting fun into meetings is like putting lipstick on a pig—it can’t save a bad, unproductive meeting.
Research has found that nearly a third of meetings are patently unnecessary, and they waste $25 million a year for every thousand people. That’s a figure that leaders can’t afford to ignore.
Meetings don’t just waste financial resources—they drain energy and steal time from more meaningful work. But the problem isn’t meetings themselves—it’s how we use them. Too often, we view them simply as time slots for getting together and discussing things. Sometimes, we’re just rehashing ideas or discussing points that could have been resolved with an email.
Today’s high-performing organizations know how to separate discussion from action. They ensure that meetings aren’t just group chats, but catalysts for decisions and action—inflection points for moving work forward.
Here’s how leaders can reduce meeting drag and create faster, cleaner decisions. READ MORE
by Aytekin Tank
Source: fastcompany.com
A so-called ‘silver tsunami’ could drain decades of organizational knowledge. This five-step process can help leaders capture institutional knowledge before it walks out the door.
I call this the editing crisis. It is what happens before the conviction crisis. It is where teenagers learn to edit who they are to fit the algorithm, the college admissions process, or the dinner table conversation rewards. And then they graduate. And they join your company. And you wonder why no one pushes back in meetings.
Perhaps boards do not need another committee. They simply need to ask whether the governance they apply to leadership appointments reflects the importance of the decisions they are making.
If a three-hundred-million-dollar investment warrants structured scrutiny before approval, should the appointment of the person responsible for generating its return warrant any less?
