Lavina Ashmore

Profile

Registered: 2 months ago

The Psychology Behind Effective Time Management Training

 

Meeting Madness: How Australian Businesses Are Talking Themselves to Death

 

 

Another day, another unnecessary meeting that could have been an email.

 

 

Australian businesses are literally talking themselves out of getting work done.

 

 

I calculated recently that my clients are collectively spending over $2 million per year on meetings that produce no measurable results.

 

 

That's not including the opportunity cost of what doesn't get done while everyone's sitting around a table discussing things that could be resolved in a five-minute conversation. The meeting culture has become so entrenched that people feel guilty when they're not in meetings. I've had professionals tell me they don't feel productive unless their calendar is completely booked with back-to-back sessions.

 

 

We've created a culture where being busy is more important than being useful.

 

 

The uncomfortable truth about meeting culture? most of them are just control issues disguised as collaboration.

 

 

Remember that last "touch base" you sat through. How much actual brainstorming happened? How many new ideas emerged?

 

 

The dirty secret of meeting culture is that most meetings exist to make managers feel like they're in control, not to actually solve problems or make progress.

 

 

This isn't collaboration - it's group therapy for managers who can't make decisions outside of a formal setting. It's management theatre, performed for an audience of captive employees.

 

 

Let me tell you about the worst meeting I ever experienced.

 

 

I was consulting with a professional services firm in Melbourne that was struggling with project delays. The CEO decided the solution was better communication, so he instituted regular "alignment meetings" for all department heads.

 

 

The first meeting ran for two hours. The agenda covered eight different projects, most of which only involved a handful of people in the room. By the end, everyone knew a little bit about everything, but nobody had the time to actually work on anything.

 

 

Within a month, they were having meetings to plan meetings, and follow-up meetings to discuss what was covered in the previous meetings. The project delays got worse, not better. The irony was completely lost on them. They genuinely couldn't see that the meeting about meetings was the exact problem they were trying to solve.

 

 

Video conferencing technology was supposed to save us time, but it's actually made meetings more frequent and less effective.

 

 

When meetings required physical presence, there was an automatic filter. That friction meant you only called meetings when they were genuinely necessary.

 

 

Now you can set up a video call in thirty seconds, invite unlimited people with a few clicks, and create the illusion of collaboration without any of the logistical constraints that used to make people think twice.

 

 

The result? Meeting inflation. What used to be a brief discussion is now a formal meeting with agendas. Every day is fragmented into thirty-minute chunks between various meetings.

 

 

The thing that makes my blood boil: the assumption that more communication automatically leads to better decisions.

 

 

Sometimes the best thing you can do for a project is leave people alone to actually work on it.

 

 

There's a reason why the most groundbreaking companies - think Google in their early days - were famous for small teams.

 

 

Every concept needed to be validated in multiple meetings before it could move forward. The result was mediocre work that had been committee-approved into blandness. The best ideas died in the endless review processes.

 

 

Innovation doesn't happen in conference rooms full of stakeholders.

 

 

The meeting industrial complex has its own vocabulary designed to make everything sound important.

 

 

"We should probably take this offline" - translation: "I haven't thought this through, but I don't want to look unprepared."

 

 

{{"{Let's get everyone in a room|We need all the stakeholders aligned|This requires a cross-functional approach}" - translation: "I'm afraid to make a decision, so let's spread the responsibility around."|The phrase "let's unpack this" makes me want to {scream|lose my mind|run for the hills}.}}

 

 

"I'll send out a calendar invite" - translation: "Nothing will actually change, but we'll create the illusion of progress through scheduling." It's become corporate speak for "let's turn a simple issue into an hour-long discussion that resolves nothing."

 

 

Here's an opinion that won't make me popular at HR conferences: most "collaborative" meetings are actually harmful to real teamwork.

 

 

Real innovation happens in quiet spaces where people can think deeply without the pressure of performing for an audience.

 

 

Collaboration isn't sitting in a room discussing from scratch - it's skilled workers bringing their best thinking to a purposeful discussion. The meetings that actually work are the ones where people come with solutions, not the ones where they come to figure things out together.

 

 

What are the alternatives to meeting madness?

 

 

Create barriers that force people to justify gathering time.

 

 

I love the organisations that have instituted "meeting-free mornings" where calendar invites are simply not allowed.

 

 

Some companies assign a dollar cost to meetings based on the salaries of attendees. When you see that your "quick sync" is costing $500 per hour, you start to think differently about whether it's necessary. The quality improvements are usually dramatic.

 

 

Separate communication from collaboration.

 

 

Most meeting content should be asynchronous communication.

 

 

The meetings that justify their time are the ones focused on problems that require immediate feedback. Everything else - project updates - should happen through written communication.

 

 

I worked with a professional services company that replaced their weekly progress reviews with a simple shared document. Meeting time dropped by 60%, and project transparency actually improved. Everyone can see what's happening without sitting through meeting discussions.

 

 

Recognise that democratic decision-making often produces mediocre outcomes.

 

 

The need with stakeholder involvement has created meeting proliferation where large groups discuss decisions that could be resolved by a small group.

 

 

Stakeholder engagement is important for organisational issues, but not every choice requires group consensus. Most operational decisions should be made by the individuals closest to the work. They understand that additional voices isn't always better input.

 

 

Here's the metric that changed everything for me:

 

 

Measure the proportion of time spent in planning sessions compared to tangible results.

 

 

For most organisations, the ratio is embarrassing. They're spending four hours discussing every one hour of actual work.

 

 

Sometimes the ratio is even worse. Successful companies flip this ratio. They spend focused time in meetings and extensive time on implementation. The talking serves the doing, not the other way around.

 

 

That's not effectiveness - it's organisational failure.

 

 

Why are people so committed to meetings?

 

 

For many executives, meetings provide a sense of control that actual work doesn't offer. In a meeting, you can guide the conversation, prove your value, and feel important to team success.

 

 

Execution is often individual, challenging, and doesn't provide the same social feedback as contributing to a meeting. The meetings become evidence of your productivity, even if they don't produce results.

 

 

Look, I'm not completely opposed to meetings.

 

 

The sessions that work are purposeful, well-prepared, and outcome-driven. They bring together the key stakeholders to create solutions that require collaborative input.

 

 

Everything else is just organisational theatre that consumes the time and energy that could be directed on meaningful work. They're selective about when to use them, rigorous about how to run them, and realistic about whether they're valuable.

 

 

What I wish every manager understood about meetings:

 

 

The best meetings are the ones that eliminate the need for future meetings.

 

 

Ineffective meetings multiply like viruses.

 

 

Choose accordingly.

 

 

The future of workplace success depends on it.

 

 

If you are you looking for more info on effective time management training look at our own web page.

Website: https://multiversity.hume.vic.gov.au/event/32828040-a/sales-psychology-training

---

Forums

Topics Started: 0

Replies Created: 0

Forum Role: Participant