Focuses on the training and development needs of admin professionals and features topics such as hard skills (software competencies, writing, communication, filing) and soft skills (teamwork, time management, leadership).
Issue link: https://digital.hrreporter.com/i/853876
AUGUST 2017 6 Four culprits that sabotage meetings By Rhonda Scharf Let's face it ... we spend far too much time in meetings. Each day in the United States there are approximately 25 million meetings, which represents a collective 15 per cent of any organi- zation's time. Meetings are meant to be produc- tive, aren't they? Meetings are sup- posed to be an efficient way to share information, a place for conversations and debate to take place, and to over- come obstacles so we can collectively move forward with the tasks at hand. Aren't they? Then why do executives consider more than 67 per cent of meetings to be failures? Why are we continuing to spend more and more time in meetings that are less than efficient? On average, upper managers spend about 50 per cent of their time in meetings. Why? Four simple factors make meetings unproductive. Fortunately, all of these can be addressed to ensure that effec - tive meetings are the norm instead of the exception in your organization. 1� Multi-tasking Ninety-two per cent of people admit to multi-tasking during meetings. Sixty-nine per cent admit to checking their email and 49 per cent admit to doing other unrelated work during meetings. If you are planning a meeting, invite only those people who need to be there. If all the information that is shared is relevant to everyone, there should be no reason anyone is multi- tasking, because they will need the information being shared. They won't have time to multi-task because they will be engaged with the topic. However, if you are inviting people to your meeting who don't need all the information that is being shared, you are either inviting the wrong people or trying to do too much in one meeting. Cut your meetings to 30 minutes, maximum. Invite only those people who need all of the information that is being shared. That might mean you invite fewer people to the table. Ask yourself, "who really needs to be here?" and keep the list short. 2� Too many telephone-based meetings Yes, they save on travel time and costs, certainly. However, when people are not visually connecting, they are missing a significant piece of communication that is necessary dur- ing meetings: body language. We understand so much more visu- ally than we do with just the spoken word. Body language is very impor- tant for comprehension, as well as for engagement. Switch to video-based meetings. It still saves on travel time and costs, but it increases the likelihood of engage- ment. People are less likely to multi- task on video calls (4 per cent vs. 57 per cent compared with phone calls). Video calls improve engagement and familiarity. They are more per- sonal and create more of a team atmo- sphere than traditional teleconference calls do, and at no additional cost. 3� Lack of focus and preparedness We need to have shorter meetings that start and end on time. They need to include participants who are prepared (send information in advance and set the expectation that everyone will be prepared). The facilitator needs to know how to facilitate the meeting (so many do not possess that skill at all), and the participants need to follow a set of ground rules. Without structure, we create havoc. I'm willing to bet we've all spent too much time in meetings that were unstructured and chaotic. 4� Lack of accountability Too many meetings end up being a social time for many participants. Lots of chatter, a few laughs, maybe a nice snack in the middle of the day, but then nothing gets done. Someone needs to take minutes or action items. Attendees must be held accountable for what they have com - Credit: Mangsaab (Shutterstock) Continued on page 7