By Jack Cumming

Business meetings take time. They are also relaxing. The chap at the head of the table may enjoy the position. Others see that visible display of authority as weak insecurity. Is a consensus decision better or worse than a crisp decision made by a qualified executive? In a meeting, personalities are on full display. We can eavesdrop on a common meeting dynamic.

Personality More than Merits

As our listening begins, a dominant personality, the autocrat of the meeting, has been expounding his opinion for some time when a listener interrupts with a question. “Have you thought of …” The rest of the question is lost. “Let me finish,” asserts the autocrat, maintaining control. The autocrat goes on and on. Most attendees stop listening, caught up in the drama of the encounter.

Does this dynamic sound familiar to you? Maybe you are the dominant chap who knows the world would be better if only everyone accepted your direction. You like to be the center of attention, and you believe that you are popular and respected. More commonly, though, you’re among those who recoil and just hope the drama stops soon.

When the autocrat is the boss, flattery rather than reason is the safest course. “You’re so wise, Chief.” If your boss runs the meeting and reviews his accomplishments before two-minute updates from everyone else, it’s likely a “Hail to the Chief” meeting. You have to be there, but you could be more productive just getting his account in your inbox. I’ve used the male pronoun here because dominance is most often a male trait.

An Inspiring Encounter

Recently, I walked into a senior living conference and happened to sit next to a very impressive entrepreneurial executive. You may know him. His name is Carl Hirschman, and he is guiding Longevity Senior Living toward success. As I sat down, he answered a question from a tablemate by saying, “All our employees have KPIs.” I had to think for a moment before I realized he meant “key performance indicators.”

That told me a lot about the man. First, he doesn’t micromanage his employees. They know what they’re to accomplish, and they are free to either measure up or step aside. Truth be told, he didn’t say that. I just inferred it, but that’s the kind of company where talent finds a home.  Carl Hirschman didn’t say much, but it was worth paying attention and listening intently when he spoke.

Loss of Vigor

Repetitive routine meetings are costly. First, there’s the direct time cost of the executives who participate. Much greater, though, is the loss of dynamism. In a fast-paced enterprise, everyone is committed to the common cause. They don’t need approvals or time-consuming gatherings. People know what to do, and they’re busy doing it.

Over the course of a long career, I’ve had the joy of working among a team of equals, helping each other to serve customers better. I’ve also experienced the opposite. I’ve felt the darts of personalities vying for corporate advancement. You can imagine which experience was more satisfying. The culture of camaraderie was also more effective.

As a senior living resident, I’ve learned that providers extol committees as the best structure for resident input. It keeps the residents busy without interfering much with management action. Some residents might help make the enterprise great, but that potential is lost when residents are viewed collectively.

End the Dance of Personalities

If these scenarios sound familiar to you, start putting an end to routine meetings. Turn instead to (1) short one-on-one interactions, (2) quick exchanges as you pass in the corridor, (3) requesting short memos and similar brief interactions. Of course, some meetings are valuable, but they are almost never routine, and they are nearly always focused.

Committees don’t make good decisions, and meetings are more often about personalities and influence than about business realities and opportunities. Click here for a Harvard Business Review article on the futility of meetings.  Thanks, too, for inspiration to Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table.