Advice

The Real Reason Your Meetings Are Terrible

Right, let me tell you about the meeting that nearly made me quit consulting altogether.

Picture this: 2:30 PM on a scorching Brisbane afternoon, and I'm sitting in a glass fishbowl of a conference room watching twelve professionals – and I use that term loosely – attempt to discuss "quarterly strategic alignment objectives." Forty-seven minutes in, and we'd accomplished precisely nothing except determining that Janet from HR prefers oat milk lattes over almond ones.

That's when it hit me. We're not having terrible meetings because we lack technology, fancy whiteboards, or even proper coffee. We're having terrible meetings because we've fundamentally misunderstood what meetings are actually for.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Meeting Purpose

Here's what nobody wants to admit: most meetings exist because managers are terrified of making decisions on their own. They've confused "collaboration" with "democratic paralysis," and frankly, it's killing productivity faster than a dodgy internet connection in the CBD.

After seventeen years of sitting through thousands of these time-wasting exercises, I've identified the real culprits. And spoiler alert – it's not what you think.

The first problem is that we treat every discussion like it needs a committee. Some decisions require input from multiple stakeholders. Fine. But does choosing the new office stationery supplier really need eight people around a table for ninety minutes? I once sat through a meeting where we spent thirty-five minutes debating whether to use blue or black pens for signing documents. Blue or black! The mental energy wasted could've powered half of Melbourne.

The second issue runs deeper. We've somehow convinced ourselves that longer meetings equal more thorough decision-making. Complete rubbish. I've seen five-minute hallway conversations produce better outcomes than three-hour "strategic planning sessions."

But here's where it gets interesting, and where most business advice gets it completely wrong.

Why Your Meeting Rules Are Making Things Worse

Every productivity guru and their dog will tell you to "set agendas" and "stick to time limits." Look, I'm not against agendas – they're helpful. But obsessing over rigid meeting structures is missing the forest for the trees.

The most productive meetings I've ever been part of had one thing in common: everyone knew exactly why they were there, and more importantly, they knew what decisions needed to be made before they walked out. Not discussions. Not updates. Not "alignment." Decisions.

I remember working with a mining company in Perth where the operations manager – let's call him Dave – revolutionised their daily production meetings. Instead of the usual hour-long status reports, Dave would start each meeting with: "By 9:30, we need to decide X, Y, and Z. Everything else is noise." Boom. Done. They went from daily ninety-minute marathons to twenty-minute decision sessions, and their productivity shot up by 23%.

The third revelation came from watching how different generations approach meetings. The old-school executives want detailed presentations and formal protocols. The younger crowd wants quick syncs and instant decisions. Both groups are partially right, but neither understands the other's perspective.

The Australian Approach to Meeting Efficiency

There's something uniquely Australian about cutting through bureaucratic nonsense, and we should be applying this more to our meeting culture. We're generally pretty good at calling out time-wasters in social situations – why do we suddenly become polite and accommodating when someone's droning on about "synergistic opportunities" in a conference room?

I've started applying what I call the "pub test" to meetings. If you wouldn't bring up this topic at the pub with your mates, why are you wasting everyone's time with it in a professional setting? It's amazing how many meetings suddenly become unnecessary when you apply this filter.

The most successful companies I work with have embraced this directness. They've stopped pretending that every conversation needs to be a meeting. Some things can be handled via email. Some need a quick phone call. Others require face-to-face discussion. Match the communication method to the actual need.

But here's where most organisations get it spectacularly wrong – they try to solve meeting problems with more meetings. They schedule meetings to plan other meetings. They create working groups to optimise meeting efficiency. It's like trying to lose weight by eating diet cake. You're still eating cake!

What Actually Works (From Someone Who's Seen It All)

First, stop inviting people to meetings just to "keep them in the loop." If someone needs to know what happened, send them a summary afterwards. I guarantee you that 60% of your meeting attendees don't actually need to be there. They're there because someone was worried about hurt feelings or office politics.

Second, embrace the stand-up meeting for operational discussions. Not the tech startup version with daily scrums and velocity tracking – just literally standing up while you talk. People make decisions faster when they're slightly uncomfortable. It's basic human psychology.

Third, and this is crucial, develop proper communication skills before you worry about meeting management. Half the problems in terrible meetings stem from people not knowing how to express their thoughts clearly or listen actively to others.

I learned this the hard way working with a manufacturing company in Adelaide. Their meetings were disasters because nobody had ever taught their supervisors how to facilitate discussions or ask probing questions. We spent more time on communication training than meeting protocols, and their efficiency improved dramatically.

The Technology Trap

Here's an unpopular opinion: video conferencing has made meetings worse, not better. There, I said it.

Don't get me wrong – remote meetings have their place, especially post-2020. But we've lost the subtle art of reading the room. Those small nods, the shifting in chairs, the quick side glances that tell you when people are confused, bored, or ready to make a decision. Video calls flatten all of that nuance.

The worst meetings I attend now are hybrid ones where half the participants are in person and half are on screen. It's like trying to have a dinner party where some guests are sitting at the table and others are watching through the window. Nobody's properly engaged.

Why "Best Practices" Don't Work

Business schools love teaching meeting best practices. Set objectives. Assign action items. Follow up systematically. All good in theory. But most best practices assume you're working with rational, motivated people who share common goals.

Real workplaces are messier than that.

Real workplaces have people attending meetings because they're worried about being left out. They have managers who schedule meetings instead of making decisions because it feels safer to "get input." They have participants who attend but check emails the entire time.

Proper meeting management training addresses these human dynamics, not just the procedural stuff.

The Decision-Making Revolution

The companies that have cracked this challenge share one common trait: they've separated decision-making from discussion. Discussion can happen in various formats – email threads, informal chats, quick calls. But decisions happen in focused, time-limited sessions with clear authority structures.

I worked with a logistics company where the CEO implemented what she called "decision sprints." Any meeting that required a decision had a maximum 45-minute time limit, a pre-defined decision-maker, and specific criteria for what constituted enough information to move forward. Revolutionary? Not really. Effective? Absolutely.

The psychological shift this creates is remarkable. When people know that decisions will actually be made, they prepare differently. They bring solutions, not just problems. They think through implications beforehand instead of workshopping ideas in real-time.

But here's the bit that most consultants won't tell you: you need to be willing to make some imperfect decisions quickly rather than perfect decisions slowly. The cost of delay often exceeds the cost of minor course corrections later.

Making the Change Stick

Look, changing meeting culture isn't easy. People are attached to their routines, even ineffective ones. There's comfort in familiar dysfunction.

Start small. Pick one recurring meeting and apply these principles. Set a clear decision objective. Limit attendees to people who actually need to contribute. Put a hard time limit in place. See what happens.

Most importantly, model the behaviour you want to see. If you're a manager, stop scheduling meetings when a phone call would suffice. If you're a participant, ask clarifying questions about objectives before accepting meeting invitations.

The truth is, we've created a meeting culture that prioritises the appearance of collaboration over actual results. We mistake busy calendars for productivity and confuse discussion for progress.

But when you get meetings right – when they become focused, decision-oriented sessions where smart people solve real problems quickly – work becomes infinitely more satisfying. Plus, you might actually get home in time for dinner.

Further Reading: