The very thought of writing about meetings makes me want to yawn…but a team of psychologists1 has recently assessed what we know about making meetings more effective, which has to be valuable when you think how much time we spend in them. So to save you the bother of reading the whole paper, I've summarised the main points, and while not exactly racy reading, there are some useful gems.
1. Brainstorming has long been known to be a relatively inefficient way of stimulating ideas2 but recent research shows that it can actually act as an obstacle to idea generation because people can become fixated on one or two specifics3. Brainstorming has benefits, such as building group morale, but Lucent's view is, if generating new ideas is your first priority, start with asking people to contribute on an individual basis. This is more likely to produce higher quality responses and ideas from left field. Follow this up with small group (2s and 3s) collaboration to develop more detail.
2. Studies have found that agenda items tend to get airplay on the basis of order rather than importance. While circulating agendas in advance is good practice, reviewing items at the start of the meeting and prioritising them in order of importance may lead to better use of time4.
3. Humour in meetings is good for breaking down barriers and building team spirit5. As Lucent tells you regularly, there is much to be gained from positive emotion in terms of the productivity and satisfaction that humour can bring6,7. It has to be used judiciously though, as perceived in-jokes can provoke alienation and exclusion, and while self-deprecating humour can be self-effacing and help to diffuse conflict, overused it can be perceived as communicating weakness.
4. Don't just go through the motions. Think each time you fix a meeting. Be sure to know why you're meeting and don't be ruled by fixed one hour time slots when twenty minutes might do. It's also useful to bear in mind that the more participants there are, the less input each person is likely to get, and when people don't participate, the less satisfied (and therefore supportive) they're likely to be of decisions made8. This can also have a knock on effect in terms of attitudes to meetings in future. So the best way to encourage a culture of positive, purposeful meetings is to invite as few people as are really needed to get decisions made9.
5. And take responsibility for your own engagement. If you feel bored or zone out, re-engage. That way, the meeting will feel and probably be actually more productive for everyone10.
And so we've devised our own (only slightly cheesy) but evidence-based reminder:
M ake sure all meetings are actually necessary and invite only people who are central to getting the job done.
E nsure the time of the meeting is appropriate.
E njoy your meeting- use humour and use the meeting to strengthen social bonds.
T ake time to prioritise the agenda items.
I nvolve yourself in every meeting- it's your responsibility to be engaged.
N ever rely on traditional one hour time slots.
G enerate ideas individually for the best results.
And that hoary old chestnut turns out to be true – meeting standing up makes for shorter meetings without jeopardising decision quality!11
References
1 Sutton, J. & Millar, A. (2011). Towards Healthier Meetings. The Psychologist (24), 9, 668-671.
2 Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Towards the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (53), 497-509.
3 Kohn, N., Paulus, P. & Choi, Y. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, (10), 1016.
4 Littlepage, G.E. & Poole, J.R. (1993). Time allocation in decision making groups. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 8, 663-672.
5 Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humour in business: A double-edged sword. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (1), 4-28.
6 Frederickson, B. (2003). Positive Emotions and Upward Spirals in Organizations. In K.S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 159-176). San Francisco: BK Publishers.
7 Harter, J.K., Hayes, T.L., & Schmidt, F.L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, (2), 268-279.
8 Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.
9 Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance. In R. W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 221–239). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
10 Cohen, M.A., Rogelberg, S.A., Allen, J.A. & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics, 15, 90-104.
11 Bluedorn, A.C., Turban, D.B. & Love, M.S. (199). The effects of stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on meeting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 277-285.
