Meetings, Bloody Meetings

AFTER spending hours attending a meeting recently, when it finally concluded, I was left wondering what we had actually achieved. Not the first time I have felt this way at the end of a meeting.

Many hours were spent debating and venting views, exploring the way forward, yet this could have been done with greater impact and more productively in a different manner. Like from the comfort of one’s office, by reviewing the report or document under discussion, and then submitting feedback.

As I walked back to my vehicle feeling rather deflated, I recalled that popular British comedy film ‘Meetings, Bloody Meetings’. Produced in 1976, it is a great comedy with good acting by excellent English actors. But the movie is better known as a training film, with a storyline as relevant today as it was four decades ago.

Starring John Cleese as the lead actor and a bumbling middle-manager, the film is about an incompetent manager who dreams he is being tried in a court of law for running ineffectual meetings. Cleese actually scripted the movie and must have been as frustrated as I am, far too often, when leaving a meeting.

In a 2012 update of the hilarious classic comedy, Cleese returns, but this time as a judge, and not as the accused on trial. In this updated version, Cleese demonstrates how the rules that apply to a court of law also applied to meetings. He shows how to run effective meetings with purpose, structured to be powerful and productive.

It is a film with a powerful message that really should be made compulsory viewing for meeting junkies, officials and bureaucrats. There must be thousands of executives in Namibia’s public and private sectors constantly engaged in time- consuming yet unproductive meetings. Just consider the cost to the country.

Isn’t it high time that a stop be put to the holding of some of those meeting we feel obliged to attend? And when a meeting is unavoidable, a mechanism must be introduced to measure impact as a way to ensure it is engaging, effective and focused.

Although said in jest, there is merit in the advice that the best ways to ensure those attending a meeting keep it short and discussions relevant, is to use a venue with no chairs. Standing in all likelihood will force meeting attendees to cut the waffle, keep talk short, to the point, and make decisions swiftly.

What about committees? Well, generally I am not a great committee proponent. I know that it is important to be all-inclusive and accommodating of diverse views, but experience has taught me that much time is wasted, and a meeting then quickly runs the risk of becoming a talk shop. So, a small committee of two, three and certainly no more than four people works best for me.

This week’s column is shorter than usual for a purpose. The strategy is to walk the talk. Say what I have to say about bloody meetings and committees as briefly as possible. By the way, those who know me will attest that it is not the first time that I have aired my views in this way about meetings and committees. Short and to the point.

Although calendar year 2019 is still several weeks away, and it’s a little early to start making New Year’s resolutions, I know that more carefully considering invitations to attend meetings or to serve on committees, task and working groups will definitely feature on my list.

* Danny Meyer is reachable at danny@smecompete.com.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.