One Way To Know If You Really Need Another Meeting?

According to a Harvard Business Review study executives (I imagine Americans) spend around 23 hours per week in meetings (3 x 8 hour working days). That’s up from less than 10 hours in the 1960’s [insert shock and horror face emoji here].

Whichever part of the world you work in, you quite probably resonate with the above finding? While the numbers possibly differ, the upward trend applies firmly to you as well.

We have a problem

It’s a wildly ridiculous situation. The outputs of a meeting are shared information, solutions created and actions decided. That covers it. Real deliverables that translate directly to revenue don’t happen in a meeting, and yet the research quoted above suggests we’re spending 60% of our time in meetings.

I’m not advocating that we get rid of meetings. They’re critically important for a business, an organisation, a country, a family, a relationship. Meetings provide real benefits. They bring people together, ensure important information is shared, provide a platform for creativity, and result in shared responsibility and agreement for actions and activity that must get done, in order to achieve a common goal towards success.

However, when they’re stealing valuable time, preventing us from getting things done, we clearly have a large problem.

Fortunately there are many solutions to this crisis. In this post, I’m going to highlight just one that has served me well.

Synchronous v Asynchronous

Big words when you first hear them, and really useful when you understand how they can help you decide whether another meeting is required?

Synchronous actions happen simultaneously, while asynchronous actions happen independently and not necessarily at the same time. This difference applies across various contexts, including, learning, communication, and programming.

Let me break the above down a little further:

Synchronous Communication
Communication that happens in real-time. All participants are present and interacting simultaneously. Some examples include:

In-person meetings: Traditional face-to-face discussions.
Video conferencing: Platforms like Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams.
Phone calls: Voice conversations over the phone.
Instant messaging: Real-time text-based chats (Slack, Whatsapp Groups or Microsoft Teams)
Live presentations: Presentations where the audience and speaker interact in real-time.

Asynchronous Communication
Communication that doesn’t require immediate responses. Participants can interact at their own convenience. Examples of this include:

Email: Sending and receiving messages with a delayed response.
Project management tools: Platforms like Asana, Trello, and Jira, where updates and comments are left for later review.
Shared documents: Collaborative editing in Google Docs or other similar platforms.
Recorded video messages: Videos that can be watched at any time.
Online forums and message boards: Discussions where participants contribute at their own pace.
Company Intranets: Places to share information that can be accessed when needed.

The key differences between synchronous v asynchronous communication are:

Timing: synchronous is real-time; asynchronous is delayed.
Flexibility: asynchronous offers greater flexibility in scheduling.
Urgency: synchronous is better for urgent matters; asynchronous is suitable for non-urgent communication.
Documentation: asynchronous often leaves a clearer trail of documented communication.

It’s all about moving forward

In my meeting world I’ve simplified all of the above into the following:

If there is new information that will create an immediate change to the project that requires the team to find new solutions and change activity and action, then we all need a meeting.

If there is new information, that will create an immediate change to the project for some members, that requires those individuals to find new solutions and change activity and action, then they need a meeting.

If there is new information that will not create an immediate change to the project that requires the team to find new solutions and change activity and action, then we don’t need a meeting.

We certainly don’t automatically need a meeting every time new information comes to the fore. It’s imperative that the meeting owner / coordinator decides:

Who needs this new information, and how much engagement is needed for the project to continue to move forward?
Therefore, do they need to communicate synchronously or asynchronously (meeting or no meeting)?
Therefore, via which channel do they communicate the new information?

Why a meeting is Essential – an Example

The interplay between synchronous and asynchronous communication is crucial in a meeting context.

Scenario: A critical project milestone is approaching, and conflicting reports emerge from different people regarding the status of key deliverables.

Here’s why a meeting would be essential:

Real-time clarification:
Asynchronous communication, like email or message threads, can lead to delays and misinterpretations when dealing with urgent, conflicting information. A synchronous meeting allows for immediate clarification and question-and-answer sessions.

Rapid problem-solving:
If the conflicting reports indicate potential roadblocks, a synchronous meeting facilitates real-time brainstorming and collaborative problem-solving. This is vital for making quick decisions and keeping the project on track.

Conflict resolution:
When team members have differing perspectives or concerns, a synchronous meeting provides a platform for open dialogue and conflict resolution. This helps to ensure that everyone is aligned and working towards a common goal.

Building consensus:
For critical decisions that affect the entire project, a synchronous meeting allows stakeholders to discuss options, weigh pros and cons, and reach a consensus. This fosters a sense of shared ownership and commitment.

Emotional and Non-verbal communication:
Sometimes, especially when dealing with stressful situations, or complex problems, it is important to be able to see peoples facial expressions, and body language. This is only possible in a synchronous meeting.

In essence, a synchronous meeting becomes necessary when:

Urgency is paramount.
Immediate feedback is required.
Complex issues need to be addressed.
Conflict resolution is essential.
Consensus needs to be reached.

Therefore, even in a project that heavily utilises asynchronous communication, synchronous meetings remain vital for addressing critical situations and ensuring project success.

While asynchronous methods offer flexibility, certain situations necessitate the immediacy of a synchronous meeting.

The Meeting is Dead, Long Live the Meeting

If you’d like to explore how to improve the meeting culture in your business, organisation, country, school, family or relationship, I’ve got a presentation for that.