Ones that start late are not only inconvenient and impolite, but they are also much less effective than meetings that start on time, according to research. A colleague leaned over and whispered about the start time of any meetings on time after ten minutes of listening to our boss talk about the turning radius of his new riding mower. Only three – yes, three – of the approximately 700 meetings started on time.
That means that three sessions were the only ones that were as productive as they could have been. Meetings that start late aren’t merely a loss of time and a source of annoyance, according to a 2018 study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.
We discovered substantial disparities in meeting enjoyment and effectiveness among participants, as well as objective group performance outcomes such as the number, quality, and feasibility of ideas generated during the meeting.
Differences in unfavorable socio-emotional group interaction behaviors have also been discovered in relation to meeting lateness.
In concrete terms, this indicates that a meeting that started ten minutes late was a third less effective than a meeting that started on time in terms of actual and perceived outcomes. There were a third as many ideas generated. The viability of the ideas generated dropped by about a third. The “socioemotional group interaction behaviors” are another category.
Let’s take a look at a typical meeting. A few people, whether literally or virtually, arrive early. They begin to converse. The “room” starts to fill up. It’s time to get started, but a few people are still missing. Or one or two crucial persons, generally the meeting’s organizers, keep chatting to pass the time.
Someone eventually says, “All right, let’s get started.”
In the meantime, much of the room’s focus and energy has been sucked out, and no matter how hard you try, whether you’re the leader or a participant, it’s exceedingly difficult to regain that focus and enthusiasm.
Keep in mind that those effects happened even when meetings started on schedule; if your employees anticipate meetings will constantly start late, their performance and involvement will suffer.
The answer is straightforward. No excuses for not starting your meetings on time. It is impolite to arrive late. Arriving late suggests that you value your time over that of others. And, if you really need an excuse, coming late jeopardizes the result of a meeting you thought was important enough to hold in the first place.
To summarize, arriving late is equivalent to stating, “This meeting is essential… but it’s not that important.”
It’s understandable that starting on time all of the time sounds impractical. As a result, the best method to avoid starting meetings late is to reduce the number of meetings held.
Nobody can be late for something they don’t have. The no-meetings strategy is also supported by research. Meetings make people less brilliant; participants who were divided into small groups and asked to solve issues had an IQ reduction of about 15%.
Large meetings also discourage participation, particularly among those who believe their position in the group’s hierarchy is low.
I don’t do meetings or phone calls, as Mark Cuban puts it. If you’re going to write me a check, I’ll set up a meeting. If there’s a compelling cause for me to assist in the closing of a contract, I’ll convene a meeting. Aside from that, it’s all email. Because most meetings get off to a late start… and then drift to a sluggish conclusion. Time is squandered. Energy is squandered. Motivation, zeal, and attention are all squandered. All of this reduces people’s effectiveness significantly. As a result, begin your meetings on time. If you’re unwilling to do so, perhaps you shouldn’t hold any meetings at all.
source