Managers spend a considerable proportion of their time in meetings. Usually this proportion is far too high. 80 percent of all higher-level managers stated in interviews that they spent 60 percent of their time in meetings. And 80 percent of the managers stated that 60 percent of all meetings were inefficient and unproductive. Whichever way we look at it, this is an unacceptable situation. Meetings can and must be made productive. They can be a very effective tool provided we follow a few simple rules.

Reduce the Number of Meetings

Improvements in the effectiveness of meetings begin with the cancellation of some meetings. In most organizations there are simply far too many meetings. This is essentially due to the following reasons, which will gain more rather than less validity in the future due to technological change: Organizational structures are getting more and more complicated. There is an increasing trend towards working groups and teamwork. Many managers call meetings simply as a knee jerk reaction without thinking about whether they are really necessary. The numbers of specialists are increasing, but due to their narrow field of expertise, they are unable to carry out a task from beginning to end on their own; they need another five or six people to help out.

Therefore, the number of meetings automatically increases if no action is taken against this trend. Furthermore, each meeting necessitates a series of subsequent meetings. Every management meeting usually means work for each member of the management team, which in turn necessitates more meetings in the divisions and departments under them.

Hence, the first important step is to put a stop to this proliferation of meetings. The automatic mechanisms that lead to more meetings must be eliminated or brought under control.

Therefore, my first recommendation is: Do not hold a meeting! When we get the impulse to call a meeting, we should stop briefly and ask: Is this meeting really important? Is there another way to do the work or solve the problem? Only after careful consideration, and if there really is no other or better way, should we actually call the meeting.

Particular attention must be paid to one cause of the proliferation of meetings: teamwork. Since teamwork has become so routine, it has also become a source of inefficiency. Many “teams” are not teams in reality, they are groups. They are put together without thought; not enough thought is devoted to who should be a part of the team and who should not; the tasks and working methods are set sloppily; frequently, the objectives are not defined well enough. The more this is true, the more meetings will be necessary, not for the purpose of doing actual work, but to seek clarification and to deal with the sloppiness.

Though teamwork is distinguished by smooth cooperation, this does not mean that all team members need to attend all the meetings. Good teamwork means that the need to hold meetings is reduced to a minimum.

Managers who spend more than 30 percent of their time in meetings should give careful thought to how they can reduce the time taken up by meetings. And if this is really not possible, they should at least devote a great deal of attention to the effectiveness of their meetings.

Crucial for Success: Preparation and Follow-Up Work

The real work is not usually done in the meeting itself but before and after it. The effectiveness of a meeting is determined by preparation, in practical terms this means preparing the agenda and implementation of the resolutions after the meeting.

The preparation of a meeting requires time. Therefore, we should make a space for this time in our schedule to ensure we have it. Managers do enter meetings in their diaries. But surprisingly, very few also reserve time in their schedules for the preparation and follow-up work.

Inadequate preparation can, to a certain extent, be compensated for by improvisation, and experienced managers resort to this. It should be noted in passing that this is not an innate ability but the result of long years of experience. Good managers can improvise, but they do not depend on the skill of improvisation. They prepare, they conscientiously think about the meeting and its course, and they also know that even the best-prepared meetings do not always go according to plan. There is enough demand for the skill of improvisation even with the best of preparation.

The instrument for preparing a meeting is the agenda. There should be no meeting without an agenda – with one exception that I shall explain at the end.

Usually it is neither possible nor advisable to prepare an agenda alone. As part of the preparations for the meeting, we should coordinate with all or at least the important participants in the meeting, give them the opportunity to specify their ideas and wishes for the organization of the agenda and the course of the meeting. The formal rights of motion in certain types of meetings, depending on the legal system, statutes, partnership deeds, etc. remain reserved.

Coordination in setting the agenda and deciding the course of the meeting does not change the fact that, in the end, it is the task of the person chairing the meeting to set the final agenda. Therefore, it is this person’s management decision to take up certain suggestions and disregard others. For regular meetings it is advisable to set a time by which any ideas and requests should be submitted to the chairperson of the meeting. The agenda must be sent to the participants in accordance with the provisions in the statutes or well in advance to give them time to make their own preparations. These periods of notice must be borne in mind when setting the aforementioned deadline.

A good agenda has few items rather than many. The items should be really important, i.e. those that really justify the personal presence of the participants. The principle of concentration is crucial for the effectiveness of meetings. Exceptions are those meetings which deal with the processing of items and formalities agreed upon in advance, for example, dealing with legally stipulated items in the internal relationships of group companies. These meetings can have many items on the agenda, as there is hardly any need for discussion and no decisions are to be taken.

Chairing a Meeting is Hard Work and Requires Discipline

People who chair a meeting are visible and obvious to everyone. The participants instinctively notice whether or not the chairperson has everything under control. Therefore, this is an opportunity to gain respect, or to lose it, by management action. The office or position in the organization held by the person has little to do with it.

Once a person understands what chairing a meeting is all about and what must be kept in mind, the rest is just a matter of practice. As with everything else, this must also be practiced. No one can expect to become a passable tennis player without a minimum of training. The same is applicable to chairing a meeting. In the course of time it becomes routine; a person automatically does what is correct, and no longer needs to make a great effort– just as with driving.

Types of Meetings

There are different types of meetings. Some types are well prepared as a matter of course; other types are characterized by a lack of preparation. However, all meetings must be well prepared if we are interested in personal and organizational effectiveness.

Large, Formal Meetings

Typical examples here are supervisory board, executive board, advisory board or shareholders’ meetings, and annual general meetings. These meetings are usually well prepared, because no one wants to make a fool of himself in front of these bodies. However, this cannot be taken for granted even in these types of meetings. The number of inadequately prepared meetings is more than people would like to believe.

Routine Meetings

Regular board meetings, senior management meetings, departmental meetings, or divisional meetings are typical examples. In well-managed companies, these meetings are adequately prepared, but the effectiveness of such meetings can be greatly improved in many cases. For example, people try to deal with too many items on the agenda. Frequently, there is an unsuitable mixing of points concerning the operative business and points which deal with the future of the company and innovation.

It is advisable to make a clear differentiation between these issues, because they have to be handled differently and, above all, the time required for each of them varies. One option could be, for example, that every second or third management meeting is devoted exclusively or primarily to innovation issues.

Meetings of Working Groups, Cross-Departmental Teams, etc.

Usually very little preparation goes into these meetings, even though they are often more important than the first two types of meeting. The task of preparing and chairing most of these meetings is in the hands of group leaders or project managers who have, however, little practice or experience in this area and have also been trained for this role inadequately, if at all. These meetings are most frequently...