Posts

The Real Reason Your Meetings Are Terrible

The bloke sitting across from me was checking his phone. Again. Third time in five minutes, and we were only discussing the quarterly budget that would determine whether his department got the resources they'd been whinging about for months.

That's when it hit me like a freight train carrying a load of obvious: we've been doing meetings completely wrong for decades, and everyone's too polite (or too tired) to admit it.

After running workshops across Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney for the past 18 years, I've sat through approximately 4,247 meetings. Rough estimate, but probably conservative. And here's what nobody wants to hear - the problem isn't your agenda, your conference room technology, or even that one person who always shows up five minutes late with a coffee that's somehow still steaming.

The problem is that we've turned meetings into performance theatre instead of actual work.

The Performance Problem

Walk into any corporate meeting room and you'll witness the greatest acting ensemble this side of NIDA. Everyone's playing their assigned role: the Engaged Listener (nodding enthusiastically at everything), the Devil's Advocate (who questions everything but offers no solutions), the Time Keeper (constantly checking their watch), and my personal favourite - the Note Taker (frantically scribbling down every pointless tangent).

But here's the kicker - none of these people are actually meeting.

They're performing the idea of having a meeting. There's a massive difference, and it's costing Australian businesses roughly $37 billion annually in lost productivity. Don't quote me on that figure, but it feels about right when you factor in salaries, overhead, and the opportunity cost of all those brilliant minds sitting around pretending to be interested in Brad's PowerPoint about "synergistic optimisation frameworks."

Real meetings happen when people drop the act and start solving actual problems. Effective meeting management isn't about following a perfect agenda - it's about creating an environment where the performance stops and the work begins.

The Three Types of Terrible Meetings

Over the years, I've identified three distinct species of awful meetings. Each one more soul-crushing than the last.

Type 1: The Information Dump These are meetings that should've been an email. Actually, they should've been a memo. Or better yet, a sticky note. Someone decides that reading spreadsheet data aloud to six people is somehow more effective than just sending the bloody spreadsheet. I once sat through a 45-minute meeting where the entire purpose was to announce that the coffee machine was broken. Forty-five minutes. For a coffee machine.

Type 2: The Democracy Illusion The meeting organiser has already made their decision but wants to create the appearance of consultation. They'll ask for input, nod thoughtfully at suggestions, then proceed with their original plan anyway. It's like asking your kids what they want for dinner when you've already started cooking spaghetti bolognese.

Type 3: The Anxiety Spiral These meetings exist purely to manage someone's fear of making decisions. Every possible risk gets discussed, contingency plans for contingency plans get developed, and by the end, everyone's more confused than when they started. I call these "decision prevention meetings" because that's exactly what they achieve.

The worst part? We all know which type of meeting we're in within the first sixty seconds, but we sit through them anyway because apparently, that's what professionals do.

What Actually Works (And Why Nobody Does It)

The most effective meeting I ever attended lasted twelve minutes. Twelve. The MD of a construction company in Perth called everyone into the lunch room, outlined a problem with a delayed shipment, asked for solutions, picked one, assigned responsibilities, and dismissed everyone before the coffee got cold.

No agenda. No PowerPoint. No "let's circle back on this." Just problem, solutions, decision, action.

But here's why this approach terrifies most managers: it requires actual leadership. You can't hide behind process or protocol. You can't defer decisions or create committee sub-groups to study the issue further. You have to think, choose, and take responsibility for outcomes.

That's terrifying for people who've built their careers on managing process rather than delivering results.

The other thing that works - and this will sound controversial - is having meetings where not everyone gets to speak. Revolutionary concept, I know. But if someone doesn't have relevant expertise or decision-making authority, their opinion might not be needed. Shocking.

I learned this from watching how professional training facilitators run workshops. They don't let every participant derail the session with irrelevant questions or personal anecdotes. They maintain focus, redirect when necessary, and keep things moving toward the objective.

The Meeting Invitation Lie

Here's something that drives me absolutely mental: meeting invitations that say "30 minutes" when everyone knows it'll run for an hour. Or worse, the ones that block out an hour "just in case we need it."

This is organisational lying, and we've all agreed to participate in it.

If you can't articulate what you want to achieve in a meeting and roughly how long that should take, you shouldn't be calling a meeting. Full stop. End of discussion. Meeting cancelled.

I started requiring meeting organisers to include three things in every invitation:

The specific decision or outcome we're working toward
What preparation attendees need to do beforehand
The actual consequences if this meeting doesn't happen

Amazing how many meetings suddenly become unnecessary when you apply these criteria.

The Status Update Scam

Weekly status meetings are the biggest con job in modern business. "Let's go around the room and everyone share what they're working on." Why? So we can all pretend to be interested in Jennifer's progress on the quarterly compliance report?

Status updates aren't meetings. They're reporting. And reporting can happen asynchronously through proper project management tools, email updates, or shared documents. Revolutionary technology, I know.

The only reason status meetings persist is because some managers don't trust their teams to actually do work unless they're watching. It's micromanagement disguised as collaboration.

Real teams don't need status meetings. They need problem-solving sessions, decision-making forums, and strategic planning discussions. You know, actual meetings about actual work.

If your weekly team meeting could be replaced by a shared spreadsheet, you're not having a meeting. You're conducting performance theatre for an audience of people who'd rather be working.

The Technology Trap

Don't get me started on meeting technology. Actually, do get me started - someone needs to say this.

Video conferencing didn't improve meetings; it just made terrible meetings more accessible. Now we can waste time across multiple time zones simultaneously! Progress!

The number of meetings I've attended where the first fifteen minutes were spent trying to get everyone connected, figuring out screen sharing, or dealing with audio feedback is genuinely depressing. And then someone inevitably says, "Can everyone see my screen?" Yes, Karen, we can see your seventeen browser tabs and that email from your mother about Sunday dinner.

But here's the real kicker - hybrid meetings where some people are in the room and others are on video. These are broken by design. The people on screen become second-class participants, struggling to contribute while the room-dwellers carry on with their side conversations and body language cues.

Pick one format and stick with it. Don't try to accommodate everyone's preferred communication style in a single meeting. It doesn't work.

The Follow-Up Fairy Tale

"We'll follow up after this meeting with action items and next steps." How many times have you heard that? How many times has it actually happened effectively?

Meeting follow-up is where good intentions go to die. Someone sends around notes that nobody reads, action items that nobody tracks, and deadlines that somehow become "rough guidelines."

The most successful teams I work with handle follow-up during the meeting, not after it. Before anyone leaves the room (or logs off the call), they confirm who's doing what by when. Out loud. With witnesses.

No meeting notes needed. No action item spreadsheets. Just clear commitments made publicly with immediate accountability.

What Good Meetings Actually Look Like

Good meetings feel different. The energy is focused, not scattered. People lean in instead of checking out. Decisions get made instead of deferred.

Here's what I've noticed about the rare meetings that actually work:

They start with context, not pleasantries. "Here's what's happening, here's what we need to decide, here's what success looks like today."

They end with clarity, not confusion. Everyone knows what happens next and who's responsible for making it happen.

They include the right people, not everyone who might be interested. Invite decision-makers and subject matter experts. Everyone else can read the summary later.

And here's the controversial bit - good meetings sometimes make people uncomfortable. Real decisions often involve trade-offs, resource allocation, and saying no to good ideas. If everyone leaves feeling warm and fuzzy, you probably didn't accomplish anything meaningful.

The Meeting Revolution Nobody Asked For

We don't need better meeting rooms, fancier technology, or more sophisticated scheduling tools. We need the courage to question whether half these meetings should exist at all.

Start by cancelling one recurring meeting this week. Just one. See what happens. My guess? Absolutely nothing will fall apart, and you'll free up several hours of collective time that can be spent on actual work.

The meeting industrial complex wants you to believe that collaboration requires constant gatherings, structured agendas, and formal processes. But some of the most important work happens in hallway conversations, quick phone calls, and focused individual effort.

Maybe the real meeting revolution isn't about making meetings better. Maybe it's about having fewer of them.

More Reading: