"Let’s meet to talk about that” seems to be the new get out of jail free card for those involved in administering student organizations. We must be wary of this phenomenon and take all necessary steps to defend against it. Meetings too often replace actual action with a trap of busywork, defined as work that usually appears productive or of intrinsic value but actually only keeps people occupied. Considering the extensive responsibilities some of our student leaders and administrators have, meeting may very well be a waste of time.
We have all been in this situation. I’m certain all of us have had multiple experiences walking out of a meeting wondering what we did for the past hour. We probably acknowledged that it was a waste of time and perhaps even made a commitment to be more productive moving forward. We might even have given ourselves excuses to justify the hours spent. Well, it was important for everyone to see each other. Really? Why? And even if that is true, why can’t meetings be efficient, productive and focussed on deliverables?
A large problem is that time is spent on outlining actions rather than making decisions and actually doing things. For many who have multiple commitments and limited time, the time spent in meetings may well be all the time available for a specific organizational commitment. If I have an hour I could either spend the hour in a meeting talking about the work or I could spend 20 minutes actually doing work and perhaps some of the 40 remaining minutes communicating it to the team. In one case work gets done. In the other, it doesn’t.
Let me be clear that this is not a battle cry against all meetings. There are moments where nothing can replace the rapport, relationship and common understanding one can establish in a face to face meeting. However, appealing to ambiguous notions of trust and familiarity is not sufficient to justify the time taken and in all likelihood wasted in meetings. Consider these two scenarios:
First, in a recent interaction with the office of Student Leadership and Involvement, I supported the creation of a new cultural organization on campus. While this was after the typical registration deadline, there were merits to officially recognizing such an organization for overseas outreach work. After email communication hit a wall, the relevant coordinator offered a meeting to talk about the process. We met.
I regret it. A productive meeting would have been to examine the process and find a way to meet the goals within existing limitations. Instead the meeting centered on the feelings of the coordinator who apparently felt we were looking at the wrong thing by challenging the process. Critical examination of existing systems is good leadership practice. Feelings cannot be a substitute to engagement with processes and systems to find efficient and effective outcomes.
Second, the last Multicultural Leadership Council General Body Meeting (GBM) of fall 2016 was rescheduled and subsequently cancelled. It was to be replaced with an informational email which, two months later, has still yet to arrive. Such GBMs are highly inefficient when the substantive information in a meeting can be conveyed via email (or, in this case, apparently not conveyed at all).
Beyond raising questions about the utility of such organizational structures, it raises issues with how we find opportunities to build relationships. Many people may defend GBMs as opportunities to meet and get to know others, but the reality is that greater socialization happens when people gather for a social rather than administrative purpose. The need for social events does not justify the need for meetings.
Moreover, the offer of a meeting where things are “off the record” is too often used as a way to avoid making written commitments and being accountable for those commitments. The result? Business as usual. While the current state of affairs may justify existing structures and positions, business as usual comes at the cost of long term improvement. Within educational institution like ours, it also serves as a negative example for the next generation of leaders by normalizing self-interested behavior without emphasizing accountability or excellence.
How can we fix this broken state of affairs? A first step may be to just stop having meetings. Communicate via email, collaborate over Google Docs, call for a quick chat. All these options reduce inefficiencies. A second step is to minimize meeting times. There is often no reason why a meeting should last beyond an hour. Through it all, demand high standards of team accountability. Punctuality, clear communication, keeping promises, rejecting a culture of last minute changes: Such commitments improve organizational excellence and establish a feedback loop which reduces the need for meetings from the start.
As we start a new semester, embrace and enjoy the freedom of a schedule that does not and will not allow for distractions to meaningful progress, action and change. Every pair of hands can do great things in the 24 hours of each day and meetings must not take up blocks of time we cannot afford to waste. Cancel the meeting. Use email instead.
Tommy Koh is in the departments of political science and psychology with a minor in social policy. He is from Singapore.
