At Twilio, we have "no-meeting Fridays". It's a really simple concept: you should not schedule meetings on Fridays if you can avoid doing so, allowing everyone to have one work day where they can minimize disruptions and focus. Yes, there are occasions where something is time-sensitive and it's the only option... but they're rare. Like, maybe once-a-quarter rare.
But in my former life... the idea of a no-meeting day at any point would be pretty radical... and the idea of a no-meeting day every single week would absolutely break some folks' brains.
As I consider these two experiences, I wonder: how can both have fidelity at the same time?
Survivorship Bias
You've probably seen this diagram, but you may not have thought about meetings in this light.
Survivorship bias is a statistical mistake that stems from assuming you're working with the whole population when you're actually only seeing a subset. The famous example from the picture had to do with analysts trying to decide how to preserve more bomber crews in the Second World War. In an attempt to figure out how to most effectively reinforce the armor on the planes, they analyzed the damage patterns on returning bombers. The "aha moment" came when they realized that there were places that never seemed to take damage - the mistake was to think that this meant those areas were the best protected! As it turns out, it meant that planes taking damage in those areas weren't coming back.
What does that have to do with meetings, you might ask? Think about how you approach meeting culture: if you come out of a meeting (even a really productive one) and think "that was absolutely necessary"... well, you might be right. But "necessary" may not be the best word for it - you might have been able to meet that need in another way!
It's important to recognize that (1) some things work well in meetings, and that (2) not everything has to be a meeting. Before you fall into the trap of positive reinforcement ("we were stuck, we had a meeting, we were un-stuck, so next time we're stuck we should just have a meeting"), carefully evaluate what's actually needed.
return True;
Whether you believe meetings are necessary, or unnecessary, you're right. The answer, I believe, is that if you construct your culture around the idea that meetings are integral to success, you'll have more meetings. And if you structure your culture around being able to work independently and only meet when it's needed... well, you'll have fewer meetings.
So the question in my mind is, "are meetings good or bad?"
Yes. And No. Simultaneously.
I love this scene, because it's a warning against assuming that micro- and macro- behave the same way... and I think it can apply to a lot of other things too. Let's try a flavor of it for "meetings":
"A meeting (where the participants are focused and engaged and have an achievable goal) is smart. Meetings (being held because it's the way we are) are dumb, painful, wastes of time and you know it."
We simply can't evaluate meetings as a collective entity. We have to evaluate an individual meeting to be able to discern goodness or badness. When you try to treat them as a concept, and apply blanket statements such as:
- "Meetings are necessary!"
- "Meetings are dumb."
- "Meetings waste everyone's time."
- "Meetings help us collaborate."
So what makes a meeting "good" or "bad"?
Meetings are GOOD when
There's a specific goal to be achieved. Don't just schedule a meeting to make sure we have time to talk - schedule it with a purpose in mind. How will you know you've accomplished what needs to get done?
Everyone is prepared. There are two parts to this: one that the scheduler can control, and one that they can't. You CAN ensure that everyone has the information to be covered ahead of time - an agenda, any relevant docs... simple stuff, but necessary. The other part, what you as the scheduler CAN'T control, is a little trickier, isn't it? I encourage you to think of this part as a leading indicator of a further problem... if people are having a hard time showing up prepared for meetings, it might be because they're over capacity.
People are engaged. If you've called for a meeting and find that nobody else is engaged in the process, you should have all sorts of "check engine lights" going off in your head. Why aren't they involved? Is someone monopolizing the meeting? Is someone stifling psychological safety? Did we invite people to the meeting who didn't need to be here, and so they feel like we're wasting their time? Getting to the root of why people aren't engaged can be hard work and it can take you in lots of directions, but if you don't solve the mystery you're likely to find yourself in the doldrums of terrible boring worthless meetings.
It ends on time. This is a sort of trailing indicator - if your meeting naturally wraps within +/- 5% of the scheduled end time, you're probably doing pretty ok. If you end too early, you should ask yourself whether a meeting was really necessary; could we have accomplished this asynchronously? If you end too late, it's a good sign that you probably didn't set a clear, achievable goal.
Wrapping up
Meetings are a tool in the collaborator's toolbox, and like any tool, they can be used well or poorly. It's not fair to generalize and call meetings either a cure-all or the bane of all existence; they should be evaluated individually.
Top comments (0)