Kindly exclude me from your meeting: Why more participants equals less productivity
In a world more eager to hear diverse perspectives, inclusion is inherently good. But like everything, overdoing it comes at a cost.
In a world more eager to hear diverse perspectives, inclusion is inherently good. But like everything, overdoing it comes at a cost.
So here it is: liberally inviting people to your meetings may be wasting everyone’s time.
On average, two extra people attended each meeting during the pandemic. But did this help us achieve more? Research shows we’re more likely to attempt multi-tasking in a large meeting, where relevance and engagement tends to be lower. This rarely improves productivity.
At the same time, we’ve heard and empathised with a constant grumble of meeting fatigue (despite actually spending less time in meetings). No doubt most of us would relish an open calendar, to allocate time on our own terms.
Excluding someone from your meeting shows generosity to those invested in achieving the meeting’s objective, and to those who gain time by being excluded.
But that doesn’t mean it’s always easy.
‘Why’ before ‘who’
Here’s some advice you’ve heard before but is impossible to skip over: be very clear on why you are meeting. To generate ideas, make a decision, build relationships?
Does it require multiple people to be active in real time (and therefore communicating async won’t cut it)?
A narrow and specific purpose is the north star for your invite list.
Armed with your purpose, it’s easy to fall into old patterns of who belongs in the room: Lucy from Sales is always at marketing meetings. Tao really wants to feel involved in this project. Opening the doors might feel generous to Lucy and Tao, and this is where it can feel difficult.
Priya Parker is a master facilitator with a background in conflict resolution.
Her experience planning and running gatherings from conference centres to conflict zones has taught her when to “close the doors”.
In her book The Art of Gathering, Parker suggests starting with these questions:
- Who not only fits but also helps fulfill the gathering’s purpose?
- Who threatens the purpose?
- Who, despite being irrelevant to the purpose, do you feel obliged to invite?
While inviting this third group may seem harmless, it can materially detract from your meeting’s goals. “This is because once they are actually in your presence, you (and other considerate guests) will want to welcome and include them, which takes time and attention away from what (and who) you’re actually there for,” says Parker.
Those two extra people can really change the dynamic of a meeting. Facilitating large groups isn’t easy (and few professionals are trained in this skill anyway). Keeping everyone on topic, and to time, can feel like stepping in front of a train. With each extra seat filled, accountability can drop, along with the chance of post-meeting action. Next thing you know, you’ve scheduled another meeting with the same people for next week, hoping to achieve a different outcome. Not only does this slow progress towards the meeting’s purpose, but it also keeps team members from their other responsibilities. A small but considered group may have been kinder to everyone.
What about diversity?
Perhaps your attendee list includes ideal ratios of ethnicities, backgrounds, identities, abilities and beliefs. Surely you can’t sacrifice the inherent benefit of such a varied group?
Again, this depends entirely on your purpose. These characteristics aren’t always relevant. But more importantly, a diverse invitee list doesn’t guarantee diverse perspectives are heard.
Parker, whose career is founded on her experience facilitating racial dialogues, explains “diversity is a potentiality that needs to be activated. It can be used or it can just be there.”
The more people present, the more hesitant each may be to share their ideas or concerns. The perspectives shared are easily diluted. Conversely, a smaller meeting can create the safe space and engagement levels conducive to rich conversations.
Excluding with kindness
Excluding someone from your meeting doesn’t need to communicate that they’re unimportant or irrelevant. If you think someone would expect or like to be invited, chat with them upfront. There may be a way for them to be included in the discussion async, to support information sharing without weighing down the meeting.
“Sally, I know your customer insights will be an important input for our next campaign. Would you mind contributing to the background doc so the marketing team’s up to speed before their next design meeting?”
“Hey Tao, I know the ops project will impact your team and you’d want to keep across it. Can I cc you into the outcomes email after each meeting? You can flag any concerns…”
Or, they may persuade you that they are required to attend, and you can prepare for the meeting with that in mind.
It comes down to culture
Ultimately, team culture plays a big part in feelings of obligation or offense. Working as a team to establish clear expectations about how meetings are justified, planned and facilitated can go a long way to helping you achieve more inside, and outside, the meeting room.
Before sending your next round of meeting invitations, stop and question the following. It may save everyone some time.
Here are some practical options to discuss:
Should all meeting invitations include the purpose, agenda, and background info?
If someone’s not convinced they’re necessary, should they just decline?
What timeframe is required for responses, to enable a reschedule if necessary?
How can you encourage people to skip parts of the meeting that aren’t relevant?
Which asynchronous comms will be used to keep interested parties informed?
