This is a Great Article From Mountain Goat Software. No-meeting weeks are not a new concept. There are pros and cons to this approach. Thus it should not be adopted lightly.
I read with interest about Google’s recent adoption of “No-Meeting Weeks.” Initiatives such as this have been proposed and used many times by many companies in the past. Google’s is in response to the increased fatigue many of us feel from the shift to all-remote work.
As appealing as it sounds to have a week with no meetings, I think it’s a bad idea.
The resurfacing of this idea, popping up afresh every few years, leads me to reason that it must not work. Companies start with great fanfare, but then meetings inevitably begin to get added back onto employees’ schedules. However, five or ten years later, companies again announce the return of no-meeting weeks.
This happens because meetings are helpful.
They should be. Likewise, they can be fun if they run well and with the right participants.
An Experiment in No-Meeting Weeks
I’ve always disliked unnecessary and lengthy meetings. Years ago, before starting Mountain Goat Software, I was employed by a large company. As is typical, they held too many meetings.
I tried an experiment. We would begin each meeting by randomly selecting someone to leave the meeting. They either had to or got to leave, depending on your perspective (and theirs). The intent was to give people the gift of an unexpected hour back in their schedules.
This experiment taught us several things. The first lesson came when a critical person was selected to leave the meeting. I remember one meeting was being held to convince the database director of something. He was the person randomly selected to leave, which made the meeting pointless.
Some Members Are Critical; Some Are Not
Other times, though, the person selected to leave was not critical to the meeting. When such a person was randomly chosen, the meeting would proceed just as normal.
I always wondered how people felt when they were randomly chosen, and no one suggested that we couldn’t do the meeting without that person.
While randomly selecting a person not to participate was soon abandoned, the experiment showed everyone there was the importance of ensuring each meeting had the right people and only the right people.
We stopped including someone who might benefit from a meeting. For a while, this really helped keep our meetings smaller, which also kept them shorter.before abandoning a meeting, including:
- Most meetings need an agenda.
- Make changes to the time. It can be held at a different time, for a different amount of time, or more or less frequently.
- Get the right group. Someone else might need to be invited. Maybe someone needs to be uninvited.
- Is technology helping or hindering the meeting?
There are many things you could try to help a meeting achieve the desired goal.
Remove It From The Schedule
And, of course, I’d definitely consider whether the meeting is needed at all. Many organizations start holding a type of meeting and then continue holding that meeting long after it’s ceased being useful.
Alternatives to “No-Meeting Weeks” that I have seen work well are no-meeting days or certain hours when meetings aren’t scheduled. These work because it doesn’t harm a team to say, for example, “No meetings before noon.” However, avoiding all meetings for a week can cancel meetings that are worth doing along with those that are not.
A better strategy would be to consider each of the meetings you wish you could forgo attending. Assess each one individually. Thus, either fix the problems with the meeting or cancel that meeting altogether.
What’s Your Experience?
Has your organization tried “No-Meeting Weeks”? If so, how did it go? And what have you tried to make meetings more efficient and effective in your organization? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.