How Much Money Are We Investing in Meetings?
The most basic way of calculating meeting cost considers time and salaries. For each attendee, calculate the amount of time in the meeting multiplied by his or her hourly salary. Then, add each attendee’s sum together. For example, say there is a director-level staff meeting with seven people that lasts an hour, with an average yearly salary of $120,000 per attendee (approximately $60 an hour). That meeting alone would cost $420. If this staff meeting occurs every week for a year, the total annual cost is about $21,000 for just that one meeting. Or, consider a more senior leadership cabinet meeting with twelve attendees, two hours in length, and an average attendee salary of $240,000 (approximately $120 an hour): each meeting would cost $2,880. If this happens once every two weeks, the overall cost for the year would be approximately $74,880. It is easy to see that as the number of meetings compounds across people, layers of management, and time, the costs become tremendously high. Now, let’s extrapolate even further by viewing the issue from a corporate perspective. Xerox, for example, estimated the immediate costs of meetings in their twenty-four-thousand-person manufacturing and development unit. In terms of meeting time and employee pay, costs were estimated at $100.4 million annually. Other studies suggest that 15 percent of the personnel budget is spent on meeting time. Finally, going to a societal level, Elise Keith’s analyses estimate the cost of meetings in the United States at $1.4 trillion spent per year—or 8.2 percent of the 2014 US GDP.
Interestingly, these figures are actually underestimating the costs of meetings. In addition to not using “fully loaded” salaries, which include employee-benefits costs, the estimations ignore the direct costs associated with the meeting space, meeting equipment, and potential travel costs of attendees. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, these estimates do not take into consideration indirect costs associated with bad meetings—meetings deemed a poor use of time by attendees. Indirect costs include opportunity costs: time that could be spent elsewhere productively, even if this is just quiet time to explore thoughts and generate new ideas (i.e., to just catch one’s breath and stop to reflect and think). Then there are the potential psychological costs associated with employees suffering through bad meetings. This includes erosion of employee engagement, employee frustration, the draining of employee spirit, and time spent ruminating and grousing over bad meetings. Finally, there is the concept of “meeting recovery syndrome,” which refers to the time spent winding down after a frustrating meeting. This recovery process not only affects the frustrated attendee but also potentially zaps the energy of those around the individual upon hearing the complaints and providing support.
When you take into account all the direct costs and potential indirect costs, the investment in meetings is incredibly significant. If you liken a meeting to a type of communication technology, could this actually be one of the largest unidentified line items in an organizational budget? I can say with confidence that there is no other single investment of this magnitude that an organization makes that is treated in such a cavalier manner; where so few resources are allocated to assessing, evaluating, and working to improve meetings, both locally and enterprise-wide.
What Does the Science Say? Are Meetings Working? Are They an Effective Use of Time?
Scientific reports on meeting effectiveness vary a fair amount. On the one hand, there is extensive evidence that meetings are draining the life out of individuals, teams, and organizations. For example, in 2005, Microsoft surveyed close to forty thousand people about productivity and work-related practices. They found that 69 percent globally, and 71 percent of workers in the United States, indicated that meetings were not productive. Then, a 2012 survey conducted by Salary.com, regarding time-wasters at work, revealed that “too many meetings” was the number one time-waster at the office; in fact, 47 percent of the 3,164 workers reported this answer. Finally, in 2014, Harris Poll conducted a survey for Clarizen, a project management company, involving over two thousand working adults. The focus was on what they referred to as “status meetings,” which are defined as meetings with updates for team members on completed and in-progress work activities. Nearly three of every five workers reported that they multitask during status meetings. Almost 50 percent of respondents indicated that they would rather do any unpleasant activity (e.g., go to the Department of Motor Vehicles) than attend a status meeting. Overall, 35 percent of respondents indicated that status meetings are a “waste of time.”
These data certainly look bleak with regard to meetings. I can also say these data are quite consistent with what I observe when I speak to leaders at training sessions. Namely, often I will do an exercise with attendees, asking them as a group to give me some insight into the quality of their meetings. I tell them, “I want to know what percentage of your meetings are not a good use of time.” I then name percentages and ask them to clap if the percentage stated aligns with their experiences. Almost unequivocally, “50 to 70 percent of meetings are a waste of time” receives the most applause, regardless of whether I ask this question of an audience in South America, Asia, Europe, or North America.
Now, with all this said, there are some data suggesting the evaluations of meetings are not as depressing. Verizon surveyed over a thousand “heavy meeting goers.” When participants were asked about meeting productivity, the results were more favorable than earlier data shared:
22% indicated their meetings were extremely productive
44% indicated their meetings were very productive
27% indicated their meetings were somewhat productive
6% indicated their meetings were not very productive
1% indicated their meetings were not at all productive
And in a study I conducted with over a thousand employees and managers, I asked participants to evaluate the quality of their meetings in general. The results were fairly similar to those of Verizon’s study:
17% rated their meetings as very good to excellent
42% rated their meetings as good
25% rated their meetings as neither good nor bad
15% rated their meetings as poor or very poor
So, What Is the Truth?
Taken together, the “truth” is likely an average of all the data just presented, which would result in a generally negative assessment of meetings, but with a good number of useful meeting experiences thrown in (likely tied to certain leaders who truly are good at running meetings). However, even if you fully identify with the somewhat more positive meeting data presented here, it is still obvious that (1) there is much room for improvement in meetings, and (2) there is a ton of frustration being expressed. Relatedly, the research on meetings is certainly clear about the existence of a wide range of problems that we must work to overcome (e.g., the meeting being dominated by one or two people). That said, the most important truth is your own local truth—what truly matters most is your organization’s return on its meeting investment. To help you identify the truth for your team, your department, and your organization, I have provided here a meeting-quality self-assessment.
Self-Assessment: Are You Maximizing Your Return on Investment from Your Meetings?
At the end of the book, a variety of tools are provided to help you better understand your meeting experiences and, most importantly, to improve them. One tool is called the “Meeting Quality Assessment—Calculation of a Wasted Meeting Time Index.” In this tool you are asked to indicate the percentage of time that certain “negative things” happen or are present in your meetings. This assessment covers the following:
1. Meeting design
2. The meeting itself: time dynamics
3. The meeting itself: interpersonal dynamics
4. The meeting itself: discussion dynamics
5. Post-meeting
A scoring metric is then provided. The grand average percent that is calculated represents wasted meeting investment. In other words, this grand average is a wasted-time index. Here is a guide to inte
rpret your grand scores, based on my work with organizations:
• If your scores are between 0 and 20 percent wasted meeting investment, your meetings are really quite productive. While there is room for improvement, your scores are above what is typical.
• If your scores are between 21 and 40 percent wasted meeting investment, your meetings are generally hit or miss. Plenty of time is being wasted. Improvements need to be made, but your scores are (sadly) typical of what we find in organizations.
• If your scores are above 41 percent wasted meeting investment, your meetings need substantial improvement. Your scores are considerably below average.
Taken together, the data are clear that meetings are a ubiquitous activity filling calendars and days. We can easily argue that meetings are accounting for years of time in one’s professional work life. In considering typical evaluations of meeting quality and the return on meeting investment, we should be highly motivated to solve the problems with meetings. In the next chapter we queue up a path forward.
Takeaways
1. The amount of time we are spending in meetings is increasing, especially when we look at those involving upper management. Although the statistics vary, it is important to realize that meetings take up an increasingly large amount of time in employees’ days.
2. The amount of time spent in meetings translates into big money for today’s companies—at the societal level, one estimate comes in at a cost of $1.4 trillion. These costs are underestimates, as they do not include opportunity costs and employee frustration.
3. Although there is evidence to suggest that meetings are a waste of time and are negative experiences for employees, there are also data to suggest that meetings can be productive and meaningful. This provides hope that we can truly solve the meeting problem.
4. Take the time to do the Meeting Quality Self-Assessment, provided at the end of the book, to assess your meetings’ return on investment. It’s important to do this self-assessment from time to time to ensure that your meetings are positive and productive (and encourage your coworkers to do the same)—remember, your organization has a meeting culture that reflects how everyone runs meetings.
Chapter 2
GET RID OF MEETINGS? NO, SOLVE MEETINGS THROUGH SCIENCE
A roast is an event where a particular person is subjected to an avalanche of jokes, at his or her expense, to entertain the broader audience. Let’s imagine for a moment that the particular person roasted is not a person but instead a thing: MEETINGS. It would not be difficult to roast the concept of meetings. Leveraging quotes from journalists or authors (e.g., George Will), economists (e.g., John Kenneth Galbraith), and a host of anonymous sources, the routine might sound something like this:
“If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be meetings.”
“A meeting is an event where minutes are taken and hours wasted.”
“We will continue having meetings until we find out why no work is getting done.”
“If I die, I hope it’s during a staff meeting because the transition to death would be so subtle.”
“I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food.”
“Meetings are indispensable when you don’t want to do anything.”
“Our meetings are held to discuss many problems that would never arise if we held fewer meetings.”
“Football incorporates the two worst elements of American society: violence punctuated by committee meetings.”
Would eliminating meetings make the world a better place? Was the great management guru Peter Drucker correct when he said, “Meetings are a symptom of bad organization. The fewer meetings the better”? The answer is an emphatic “no.” The solution is not to dramatically reduce or eliminate meetings (although occasionally reducing meetings is reasonable and appropriate when there is no compelling purpose to meet). Abolishing meetings is a false solution. Schedules with too few meetings are associated with substantial risks for employees, leaders, teams, and organizations. In this chapter, we will look at the evidence for why it is inadvisable to stamp out meetings. Following this, I will try to convince you that the genuine solution to excessive bad meetings is applying the science of meetings to fix them.
We Need to Meet, and We Need to Meet Critical Needs
Not holding enough meaningful meetings will likely derail employees, leaders, teams, and organizations. Holding too few meetings robs employees of essential information and feelings of inclusion, support, voice, and community. Meetings help employees build attachments to others and recognize that they are not alone in silos but instead are part of something bigger than themselves. Meetings make it possible for individual attendees to connect in a highly human way, serving to build relationships, networks, and, most important, support. Meetings serve as vehicles to efficiently bring together ideas, thoughts, and opinions and should enable each person to perform his or her job in a better, more coordinated and cooperative way. Meetings help both leaders and employees to better “make sense” of organizational life, challenges, ambiguities, and opportunities—to create a shared understanding that promotes efficiency and teamwork. Meetings foster commitment to goals and initiatives that connect jobs, as well as commitment to broader departmental and organizational aspirations that may not be explicitly stated in any individual job description. Meetings bring individuals together as a coherent whole. As a result, this coherent whole can be more adaptive, resilient, and self-directing, especially in the face of crisis.
Meetings can be stages for leaders to truly lead, share their visions, be authentic, and inspire and engage their team. At the same time, meetings are a form of localized democracy where ideas and innovation can emerge through employee interaction—even the smallest voices have the opportunity to be heard and to be given life and influence. Perhaps most importantly, meetings are sites for promoting consensus, thus serving as a focal point for collective drive and energy.
In so many ways, meetings are the building blocks and core elements of the organization: they are venues where the organization comes to life for employees, teams, and leaders. Finally, let’s not forget that humans are inherently social creatures who crave interaction and belonging, not isolation. For instance, in some research I have done, employees were asked a simple question: “If you could design your ideal work day, what would it look like”? In these private and reflective surveys, respondents consistently advocated for meetings as part of their day. In fact, a day without meetings was not considered desirable.
Taking all this information together, it is clear that the elimination of meetings is a false solution. Instead, we must work to make meetings better. The meeting problem can indeed be “solved” through the application of meeting science, rather than with speculative wisdom. This evidence can break the cycle of bad meetings: meetings that beget more bad meetings as dysfunctional practices become normative across organizations.
A Brief Introduction to the Ways Scientists Study Meetings
Meeting science is the study of meetings themselves, including what goes on before, during, and after meetings. It examines meetings not only as a critical workplace phenomenon affecting individuals, leaders, and organizations, but also as a context or container of sorts to study groups, their processes, and their success or lack thereof. Hundreds of studies relevant to meetings exist examining a range of topics, from pre-meeting talk, to lateness, to meeting design, to meeting processes, to decision-making, to cohesion, to meeting success predictors. Although there has been an explosion of research on meetings in this past decade, historical work on team effectiveness from more than sixty years back connects readily to the topic at hand. Meeting science is conducted using a number of methodologies, including field survey studies, lab studies, and experimental research involving confederates. Let me share some exemplars to illustrate the different app
roaches used in meeting science to provide a better feel for just how the research is carried out. The findings from these studies—and so many others—will be used throughout the book to better inform meeting practices.
Field Survey Studies
In one of my first projects on meetings, we surveyed nearly a thousand managers and non-managers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. We used a daily and general field survey approach to answer the following research question: “How are employee job attitudes influenced by meetings and does this depend on the person, the nature of the job, and the nature of the meeting?” Participants completed either (1) a single end-of-day survey asking about their meetings and job attitudes that day, or (2) a general survey where they discussed their meetings overall and their job attitudes. In both surveys, we also collected demographic information about the respondents and their jobs.
Field survey studies can also be used to collect data over periods of time. Joe Allen, one of my former doctoral students and now a leading scholar on meetings, conducted a longitudinal-type field study of 319 working adults. He aimed to examine how their managers ran meetings at one point in time and employee engagement at another point in time to address the question, “How do managerial meeting leadership practices relate to an employee’s overall job engagement?” Employee engagement is a highly desired outcome for organizations, given its relationship to employee performance, innovation, and even customer satisfaction.
The Surprising Science of Meetings Page 2