WHAT’S WRONG WITH MEETINGS?
Meetings are criticized because they:
■ Waste time – too many people talk too much.
■ Fail to produce decisions and can be slow, exasperating and
frustrating – they legitimize procrastination and indecisive-
ness.
■ Tend to be dominated by a few people with strong personal-
ities.
■ Make lowest common denominator recommendations.
■ Encourage political decisions where vested interests can
prevail by means of lobbying and pressure.
■ Dilute responsibility.
■ Are costly in time and money.
■ Concentrate on trivialities they can grasp rather than big
issues beyond their scope. Northcote Parkinson cited as an
example of this a committee that approved a £10 million
capital development project (which it couldn’t properly
understand) in 10 minutes flat yet spent two hours arguing
about a new cycle shed costing £2,000.
WHAT’S RIGHT WITH MEETINGS?
Meetings tend to incite such criticism because they are not prop-
erly organized. Many of the criticisms levelled at meetings are
really criticisms of their misuse, not their proper use. A well-
organized meeting held at the right time for the right reasons can
bring a number of benefits. It can:
■ Ensure that important matters receive proper consideration
from all involved.
■ Clarify thinking in that members have to justify their posi-
tions before the others present.
■ Ensure that different viewpoints are aired.
■ Act as a medium for the exchange of information.
■ Save time by getting a number of people together.
■ Promote coordination.
■ Create something as a group which the individuals could not
have achieved working separately – this is the process of
synergy, where the whole is greater than the parts.
216 How to be an Even Better Manager