Efficient Leaders Need Fewer Meetings

Have you ever belonged to an organization, or worked in a company, that seemed to have endless meetings? Did you leave most of these meetings inspired, or were you often either bored, frustrated, or feeling you just wasted your time? Was the same topic or topics rehashed over and over again? If so, you may have inadvertently stumbled upon one of the root problems facing that organization. The fact is, that when an organization is led effectively and efficiently, meetings can generally be streamlined, agendas carefully created, and time spent more effectively and productively. Peter F. Drucker stated, "Meetings are a symptom of a bad organization. The fewer meetings the better." My take on this situation, however, differs slightly from Mr. Drucker's statements, because I feel that it is not the number of meetings, but rather the quality, efficiency and whether important issues are adequately addressed, that determines the quality of a group.

1. Quality all begins with the agenda. If someone in leadership thinks carefully about his agenda, and relates his budget, vision and goals into the agenda items, the chance of visionary leadership is enhanced. Most leaders, however, either put little effort into creating an agenda, and thus use simply a prototype agenda, that they don't even adhere to in running their meetings. A proactive agenda creates excitement, and gets people involved in thinking and developing ways to improve the organization. This means getting to the crux of the matter, and not simply doing it by rote, or going through the motions. Those in positions of leadership who stray away from the agenda process rarely are productive or effective. For a meeting to have been worthwhile, an action plan and an adhered to, to - do list must be the result leaving that meeting.

2. Although some meetings are mandated by certain organizations' by - laws, etc., in general, meetings should only be held when there is a true need. In over three decades of professional involvement in leadership development and consulting, I have become a firm believer that rarely do significant results come out of larger meetings, but the most productive meetings are generally smaller, generally with seven or fewer attendees. A meeting should always culminate in an action plan, or it probably was not worthwhile in the first place. When individuals leave a meeting and feel they "wasted" their time, it demotivates them and ends up being largely counterproductive.

Think about your meeting strategy. Is that meeting necessary or might there be a better way of being more productive?