Let’s try doings

Meetings can be a living nightmare.
Let’s try “doings” instead. What’s the difference?

Meetings have an agenda, doings a goal.

Meetings cover topics, doings aim for results.

In a meeting, you talk about things.
In a doing, you do things.

To be sure, getting to results can involve lots of talking.
But it’s not about the talking.

Too often, we meet just for the talking.
Ending up with lots of, well, talk but no result.

But where will the talking lead you?
Asking that question is a powerful shift already.

You don’t meet to talk.
You talk to make progress.

Often, when a meeting is over, the work starts.
But when a doing is over, the work is done (ideally, at least).

Here’s a simple recipe:

  1. There’s an issue. (For example, a decision needs to be made. A plan needs to be made. A conflict has emerged and you seek alignment.)
  2. No issue, no gathering.
  3. You agree on what exactly you want to do in the meeting.
  4. You gather in a room.
  5. You do what you said you’d do.

Even if the result is merely a plan, if that’s what you agreed upon as the goal of gathering in a room, then that’s much more than the open-endedness of many meetings that simply end because time’s up.

Getting people together, whether in a meeting room or online, to work on solving problems is great. The problem is when it’s just for the sake of it.

How do you deal with meeting madness?

PS: Don’t get me wrong. There’s tremendous value in “merely” meeting for the sake of it, but there might be better places than a meeting room.

Justifying a meeting

If you want to be responsible with people’s times, you need to justify the need for a meeting from quite a number of angles, each of which can be summarized with a simple question:

Why do we need the meeting?

Including: Is it really required that we have that meeting? Or might there be more effective ways of dealing with the matter?

Who needs to be in the meeting?

Is the purpose of the meeting important enough to justify asking for these people’s presence? But also: Will their contribution be large enough to justify their presence at the meeting?

How long does the meeting need to be?

Can we ask this much time from the people who need to be there?

When do we need to have the meeting?

Is everyone who needs to be there available at the time of the meeting? And would it be the best use of their time?

Where do we need to have the meeting?

Is it required for everyone to be in the same room (adding to their time budget if it’s a physical space)?

Doings often make it much easier to find answers to these questions than meetings. When it’s clear what needs to be done, it’s much easier to identify the people who can and cannot contribute, whether we need to gather in the same physical space and whether the product of the doing is worth spending the time.

Spread the Word

Picture of Dr. Michael Gerharz

Dr. Michael Gerharz